Instigator / Pro
6
1472
rating
32
debates
48.44%
won
Topic
#3902

Gender Is Not a Social Construct.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
0
6
Better legibility
3
2
Better conduct
3
2

After 3 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
19
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

Gender is not a Social Construct, but the titles which we give the two sexes. I challenge anyone who disagrees.

-->
@YouFound_Lxam

"gender itself is the naming of the two sexes"
'sex' is the naming of the two sexes. Words are just names for concepts, that's how language works. You say 'age' to describe someones age, and 'sex' to describe their sex.

-->
@Public-Choice

No. There are currently major semantic issues as society adapted wrongly and incoherently to gender vs sex.

They kept the sex terms for gender and have not yet understood what is asked or not. I am not going to engage in that debate because currently in English we don't even have a singular version of they/them that isn't as dehumanising as 'it' so I'd rather stay away from it.

-->
@RationalMadman

So are you agreeing that there are only two genders then?

-->
@Public-Choice

The problem is that currently on official documents 'male' and 'female' are the gender options. Even if 'other' is added, the problem is male and female aren't meant to be genders, man, women, gentleman, lady etc are genders.

-->
@RationalMadman

I'd actually like to debate a similar topic with you on this.

There are only two real human genders: male and female. The rest are not genders but expressions of gender dysphoria.

-->
@K_Michael

the debate is done if you wished to vote. it's unrated anyways

shame this was unrated, caught me by surprise.

-->
@K_Michael
@YouFound_Lxam

I did put a right URL but you had to scroll past an elephant article to get to the lion one.

https://sciencing.com/difference-between-male-female-lions-8639894.html

Use this URL, I'll correct in next Round.

-->
@K_Michael

I wasn't complaining about him, I was just wondering if he was going to respond.

-->
@YouFound_Lxam

RM doesn't pump out rounds. He actually stops to think about things and makes sure he's arguing from the right angle before he even starts writing. It's actually one of the things about him that I admire most and something that I need to work on myself. I've put myself in bad corners by posting the first argument that comes to mind.

As friendly advice, if you're going to complain about opponents taking a while to post, maybe don't give a week for arguments.

Is this guy going to make another argument?

-->
@K_Michael

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+sex&oq=definition+of+sex&aqs=edge..69i57j0i512l7j69i64.2594j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

"either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."

-->
@YouFound_Lxam

Once again, the only point I'm making is that your definition of "sex" is wrong. I'm not claiming anything about humans

-->
@K_Michael

But there isn't any alternate means of reproduction in humans.

-->
@K_Michael

But there isn't any alternate means of reproduction in humans.

-->
@YouFound_Lxam

The only thing I'm SAYING is that your definition is factually incorrect in that "most other living things" inherently DO NOT HAVE SEX or sexual characteristics. And that's just bacteria. I'm not even going into plant reproduction. It would be accurate to say that MOST VERTEBRATES have sex divided into male and female, and probably even most animals, but I would draw the line for anything else.

I am not referring to intersex disorders or "mutations", but to ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF REPRODUCTION. These are perfectly normal and in fact male/female sex binary is easily outnumbered by other forms.

-->
@K_Michael

If you are going to say that some living things don't have those categories, then you're saying that since in some cases some animals are born without gender, that means that it is a normal thing in other animals too

Thats like saying if a human is born with only one arm, then it is a normal biological thing in humans to have one arm, but no it isn't, it's a mutation.

-->
@YouFound_Lxam

Your definitions have put you at a disadvantage in this debate. That is, your description of gender describes it as a social construct--not to mention the clear distinction it creates with biology.

'Sex as its defined in the dictionary is," either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans AND MOST OTHER LIVING THINGS are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."'
The vast majority of organisms reproduce asexually (via mitosis rather than meiosis).