I ask that my opponent not take me wasting a 30k char Round 1 on such a short intro as disrespect, rather after much deliberation I believe keeping my case poetic/rhetoric and concise is optimal, for my real substance will lie in how I take down Con's case. I will bring sources, in-depth exploration of points and all that in the Rounds to come. This is the strategy I believe will work best against the type of debater I am estimating the newcomer to the website, Con to be (I've read Mortem's 2 other debates and got an idea how he/she/they structures).
To prove that I've not just done this disrespectfully, I will close out these debate Round with 2 or 3 syllogisms (I'll decide as I reach it in typing).
After all, Con has a variety of 'greater enemies' to bring up and push as more fundamental, since neither side is denying that in actions, the genderqueers/genderfluids have found a lot of reasons to ally with the transgenders since they do share almost every enemy in the book... Except... TERFs and a certain type of conservative thinker as has been seen in the comments section of this debate.
The TERFs obviously prefer the genderqueers to the trans, since their fundamental gripe is with the idea that women (adult females) can or even should 'become' men to escape the pressures on them to act as 'women' in a patriarchal society and conversely that men (adult males) can or should 'become' women to act as a women do and be literally considered full-fledged women/females.
The conservative who is very pro-manly-men and pro-effeminate-women can actually at times be pro trans, what they are mortified by is the idea of a they/them gender and anything that would bend away from the gender norms. So, if you fail to be a manly man, they'd prefer you to become a transwoman then demand a they/them pronoun and deny you picked 'one of the 2' genders they see. I will leave this more mysterious for the next Round, so that if Con decided to hone in on conservatives as the fundamental enemy, I can then rebuke properly and in full and not waste effort on preemptive rebuttals.
You may wonder what my case even is then... I believe it would be best told as a story.
At first there were deviators, of course they began to get pooled in together. You had gays and bisexuals (back then pansexuals didn't exist as an idea because bisexuality itself was taboo and without things beyond binary gender to concern one's sexuality with). The gays+lesbians and their bi variants slowly realised that even straight-leaning or totally straight men and women (or even adolescents) were deviating in other ways and being bullied, isolated and even committing suicide over it. The way they were deviating was being 'not masculine enough', 'not feminine enough' or in some ways just not normal enough as a very competitive mathematics nerd is still masculine even if he's a pansy at sports and can't hold his beer well.
Then, of course, the asexuals aligned with the other 'deviants' (those with no true interest in sex even if they have some libido, they're happy masturbating until they die overall). It is no wonder why the left wing ended up with far more weirdos than the right wing ever did; it's because it is primarily Conservative ideology revolves around conformity and ridiculing outcasts (unless at the far-left communism which starts to do similar).
At these times, which were from the 60s snowballing through to the mid to late 80s, the movements had at least gained momentum in the west such that people started thinking about it. Is it right to force all men to act stereotypically masculine? Is it right to force the inverse on women? The very idea that individuality and original ways of dressing and acting are okay blossomed in the 80s, we all know about Freddie Mercury and his vibrant aura. This was the era of true revolution and pushing away from gender norms.
And so, so far, the idea of 'trans' just meant 'transvestite' as in one who dresses as a drag queen or butch women conversely. It also meant people who dress simply less typically, such as women donning effeminte trousers/pants rather than skirts and men with longer hair, ponytails, hell even mascara (yeah, heavy metal and hard rock types, sure but I am talking of a lot of deviation way beyond just homosexuality). The deviating from the norm became a thing to no longer shun around... I'd say only properly 2004ish. From what I understand it was the mid 2000s where truly it slowly began to be an idea that it's not okay to call a feminine-acting guy a faggot (yes, this was standard banter playground insult back then, I know Gen Z won't believe it, ask your older cousins etc). Then you had strange things happen like lesbians claiming the right to use 'dyke' similar to blacks with n-word while it being wrong for others to use (though somehow bisexuals and pansexuals that are female are allowed to use it even if they're leaning straight and aren't butch). The terms evolved, the society evolved and so did... science.
Now, the idea of transgenders did exist even from the 50s when it was more homophobic than you can imagine, let alone transphobic. Only those lucky enough to be born with genes that really did let them pass as feminine men even could do it (meaning you had almost 0 ftm trans but yeah you may have had a couple that passed as cleanshaven men or even who donned fake staches, the story of Mulan is more a story than anything real).
The concept of 'trans' was to be transvestite, as in you knew you were playing a role, you knew deep down you were still a male playing the role of 'lady' or female playng the role of 'gentleman'. This completely did align with the idea that biological sex and gender weren't directly related or in any way to be forced onto people.
The people doing it didn't hate themselves necessarily, it wasn't born out of trauma as much as 'fuck it, I'm a really feminine guy may as well play the part and people are too ignorant to realise I don't believe in genders so I may as well let them call me a she'. It was sort of an artform, acting if you will. Drag queens were proud of how much of a woman they could act as during their shows, butch women that eventually tried to act as men tended to like it far less (I don't have data proving this, I just know it). It was those women who just didn't feel very feminine that pioneered the idea of a they/them identity. Of course it's grammatically incorrect, in English we lack a non-dehumanising version of 'it' and there is no singular pronoun version of 'they' other than the specific he or she or I guess 'one' and 'the person' depending on context and sentence structure, for humans.
As I already said, science evolved and I don't mean psychiatry here. By science, I unfortunately mean specifically hormone 'therapy' (it's not therapeutic) and plastic surgery (let's not even go into surgery on the genitalia for this Round). It became a fascinating go-to solution so much so you can be cancelled and have your career ruined if you advise too strongly against it with a patient suffering from gender dysphoria and associated self-loathing issues that may be going on.
If you are being bullied for many reasons and one is you're not 'macho' enough, a solution suddenly was there... Play the role of a woman... Not just play the role... Pump oestrogen into your body and have plastic surgery to really be a woman, why not castrate oneself too? Sorry, said I wouldn't go into that. It wasn't just about 'bullying' it was about self-image. It was solely about transsexuality which became a taboo term to use even though it is very accurate to what was being done. These people, post-transition could be offended and traumatised if you dared notice their birth sex. They were no longer playing a role, it was method acting taken to the extreme and it absolutely played right into the hands of any and all saying that men ought to act in a 'manly way' and women ought to act in a 'womanly way' as defined by the very people who bullied them and drove their insecurities.
If you had a person tell you they hated being short, would you as a psychiatrist fear telling them 'you will never really be tall and you need to accept that', assuming they were past their growth spurt? You may word it politer but that's the root idea in therapy. If one feels a different ethnicity, age, weight (anorexia and bulimia come to mind) or even has deeply disturbing delusions like that their face is an alien mask and needs to be ripped off (severe schiophrenia), your job as a therapist is to help them come to a peaceful, happy-enough stated of mind with the reality and what their body is.
Why is it that everything changed with gender? That's not too important or the focus of my debate, I'll go into it in my rebuttals. What did happen though is a very interesting thing indeed...
One argues that gender and biological sex are totally unrelated and celebrates acting as non-masculine and non-feminine as one naturally is, regardless of one's body and genitalia, encouraging 0 overly artificial alterations in any overtly 'do it to feel good sense'. It has a middleground idea of 'they/them' gender for the extreme cases that really hate the idea of what the stereotypes are.
The other argues that they are intertwined but able to be the 'opposite' so much so that the morally correct way to handle one hating one's birth sex is to encourage them to play out a fantasy that they were born as the other one and live out their delusion.
Due to the forfeits it is an easy vote in my opinion but even without it, observe the description vs the debate.
Interesting read, in my opinion, I have actually had a trans person I interacted with admit I have a really good point and changed their view of what they are in terms of the mechanics of being a feminine male rather than the same as a ciswoman. They thanked me sincerely and were impressed.
The debate challenge is there for you 4D. It should be no problem for you since you're a mastermind tactician and inventor.
The drama queen here is very obviously you. There is a rule against discussing PMs in public btw.
Alright 4D, stop trying to insinuate that I'm other members in DM's, thanks. It's obvious what you're trying to do, you're a snake and a drama Queen.
There are plenty of high ranking debaters to call out that all think you are full of shit. You're only picking on me because I react so I will just stop reacting.
Idk what narcissistic issues you have but I am dont letting you spam my notifications, though I guess I will be notified for you posting to this debate.
why are you trying to throw shade that i don't respect descriptions, like you're not 10x the ego debater as i? debate me on your virtual reality bullshit and i will destroy it simply for your disrespect and hubris to the greatest mind ever lived for your nonsense.
Physicalism is the metaphyiscal theory that ultimately everything is physical. Both string theory and field theory are part of physicalism. Do you want to debate it or nah? most Gods can be ruled out in physicalism except pantheist conceptions. Although if it makes you feel better i wont argue for a pantheist god at all. Put all this in the description.
You have 0 respect for descriptions, be clear which physicalist theory you are backing:
Field theory, string theory, etc
is there a god allowed in your reality, to explain how despite all the chaos a completely unfathomable degree of harmony and constant 'laws' of physics, chemistry and biology are present in this reality?
Didn't I say I would argue for physicalism, rationalmadman? We can plaster it all over the description. If you think that's rigged, then I don't know what to say to you. You're simply in denial in case your philosophy is proven absurd. I would enjoy hearing about your 5D chess philosophy, which in your own words is "a genius way of comprehending the world and will let you comprehend the world in ways religions and other philosophies could not do." You also claim it will blow my mind, especially if I'm on psychedelics. I'm quite skeptical of these claims, and would enjoy to see you prove me wrong. If it were a truly revolutionary philosophy you shouldn't have to be scared about a poor resolution or the unlikelihood of it. All you're telling me is that you know other competing theories are better but this one "sounds cool and makes me feel unique and special to believe"
I do not debate in bad faith, I make crystal clear what my aims are.
Bad faith is to pretend you are there for anything other than winning and be there only to win. You cannot be openly bad faith, it doesn't work.
I have told you multiple times that I will debate in complete good faith if you remove the win vs loss aspect of it. Make it unrated and I'll explore but do I want to waste my time and effort on 30k chars per Round under time pressure on a debate so rigged against me resolution-wise? No, not really especially when I know you will play as dirty as possible to win and live in denial that you do so.
I will happily debate you.
You want a topic where you can bring multiple models of reality all wagered against simulation at once and you can fall back on them being equally probable while I need to prove simulation theory more probably than ALL at once.
That is inherently unfair and always going to favour you due to the structure of debating and limitations, that is if anyone bothers to vote on such a long and drawn out science+philosophy nerd debate.
Its also funny to note that your entire Discretionary rules are based upon the stipulative definition fallacy. Meaning the entire framework of your argument is based on illogical nonsense.
Am I really being told by the most openly bad-faith debater on the site that he's scared of my semantics games? I'm unsure what semantics games can be pulled on a simulated universe debate. The fact that you're not even opening the debate due to fear of a lack of votes shows where your priorities are. It's obviously not to challenge your own beliefs. All i see is you making excuses.
"all the top 10 debaters are scared to debate me" - RM
no, that's a huge debate and voters don't vote on that. I have had enough ties to know what I'm talking about and I already know you are a debater who has zero respect to be loyal to descriptions or agreed upon semantics, so I want a resolution/topic that's very specific and allows me to work around your trickery.
the likelihood of it in comparison to other potential metaphysical realities.
that's a huge theory with a lot to be debated, which part of it is it you want to debate?
Maybe this can be re-done with Ehyeh's main account, with this one deleted, because all that is necessary is a copy/paste of arguments.
thank you for the advice, have it shall be then. I would really like to debate your simulated universe theory, please. Lets see the sophist magic.
You can believe what you want, first learn the difference between 'have' and 'of' before lecturing me, ty.
You wouldn't of even posted that argument if my account wasn't banned. You would of just kept your kritik story going.
Whiteflame gave me a choice of keeping this one or the other one. I decided to keep this one, im not really sure why. Simply a gut feeling i suppose.
Novice, you are asking for a war.
I would have kept this account, because your record had much more potential with it. Perhaps ban your own one?
please see below my typo, I'll correct it in Round 2
" prefer you to become a transwoman then demand"
major error, I meant 'than' not 'then'.
K means attacking assumptions in the resolution/title.
Non-issue in what sense? I argue that both are challenging cisgender norms but the the transgender movement challenges it by conforming to it inversely while genderqueers completely defy the roles genuinely.
A Transman mimics male characteristics to play a man's role, similar with Transwomen and the woman's role.
What a stupid debate lol
I accept if you will accept me, they/them is a non-issue, what you mean by K in this case tho
Correct in a way, the Nazi's foremost enemy would be social democrats on balance but of course this could be argued to be socialists/communists, anarchists, humanitarians, lgbtq and their rights advocates disabled and their rights advocates, jews and their rights advocates.
The ideology clash is the key in this debate. It is a shame you were blocked or I may have successfully snared you but the voters could see that either way.
I have a different perspective on which of them is the problem but sure.
I agree here - the 72 gender they/them movement seriously convolutes the far more serious issue of transgender right - it undermines and makes a joke of some serious mental phenomenons.
So by your definition of enemy or rival movement, the NAZIs were not an enemy or rival movement of the Jews since they only genocided them and did not in fact , "render the original/other movement severely juxtaposed, hypocritical and/or critically implausible to uphold what it's actively pushing for "
You are unblocked, you can now accept the debate. Ensure you understand what you have agreed to in the description.
I am not able to accept this debate.
I assume it is not kritik to argue that global trans intolerance, fear, suicide, violence, incarceration, capitol punishment, prostitution, etc. are more fundamental "enemies" of trans folks then privileged Karens crying about pronouns.
Well, to do the debates I actually have to be at my computer, since it is significantly harder to write debate responses on mobile.
I am almost never on my computer and, when I am, I have client work, so having more than 1 or 2 debates right now takes up too much free time that I have lol.
Oromagi and I are still debating election irregularities in the 2020 election and I just started this new one.
If we wait a couple weeks then I can debate you on something! But as of right now I just don't have the time for 3 debates.
No, I am not an arrogant fool. I can lose this, I want the drop to be recoverable by beating the similar rating that beat me (or the rating to be so high the loss is lesser)
My rating is too low to accept the debate. If you lower the rating if no one accept it after tomorrow ill give it a shot.
I tweaked the term to be position/movement
It is the other movement that's the threat to the other, you have it backwards. They are reinforcing patriarchy and gender norms backwards.
To explain more would spoil my Round 1.
Try and strawman.
By the way I am with the they/them movement.
I would probably agree they/them type "gender expressions" are actually quite hard to defend and harm the trans mtf and ftm movement. Although you may struggle yourself if they take an ID perspective, which means even if they're opposites it shouldn't matter. Unless you argue an ID view of gender is nonsense? I wont take the debate, i already have a similar one going, and i get the sense you may end up being easy to strawman in this debate simply through your wording in the title, and id rather not strawman to win debates. Especially on a side i dont agree with.
Okay... There is not a limit to the debates you can do at once and if there was, it wouldn't be 1.
Though, tbh, I think this is an open and shir case for CON. But I won't explain why because that would be debate manipulation, and I also want to see RM's prowess defending a difficult position.
You JUST missed me!!
I am currently about to embark on a debate on whether Joe Biden probably has dementia.
Interesting debate here, however, I suspect the instigator will be unable to defend such a proposition, especially given the weak framework, and the burdens involved. Even considering the debaters and/or potential contenders involved, the particulars of the outcomes I theorize are not flattering.
Fancy a high rated debate clash?
Care to take a dabble?