Instigator / Pro
4
1504
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Topic

Gender is not a Social Construct

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 ...

Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1500
Contender / Con
7
1628
rating
22
debates
70.45%
won
Description
~ 545 / 5,000

I will be using Dictionary.com for all of this debate's definitions.

Definitions:
Gender: either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior.

Social Construct: a complex concept or practice shared by a society or group, not arising from any natural or innate source but built on the assumptions upheld, usually tacitly, by its members.

Rules:
I will be letting my opponent have the first argument.
Each opponent must provide a rebuttal, and an argument.

Pretty standard.

Round 1
Pro
First off, I would like to thank Sir. Lancelot for accepting this debate. 

Defining Gender
To start off, we must first define what gender can be if it was a social construct. Since social constructs are based off of human interaction, then if gender was a social construct, it would have to be based off of human interaction, as well. 

Human interaction is heavily based in biology. The way we talk, act, and express ourselves is based mostly on what we were biologically born as. 
Now this is not to say that every single person is like this. There are obviously feminine boys, and masculine girls. But the majority of people in the world have the sexual preference, gender identity, and gender expression that goes along with their biological sex.

Now with proving the majority of people identify with their biological sex, obviously there are going to be outliers, like I said before feminine boys and masculine girls. But when the majority of people are saying they identify with the sex they were born as, human interaction, and the concept of gender, is being based in biology. 

Of course, there are going to be outliers, but comparing the outliers to the majority when it comes to gender, would be almost the same as saying:

“Most people in the world don’t eat each other, but some people do, so it is a social norm to eat each other.”

Human Interaction
Now we come to human interaction. Humans interact with each other in many ways, but all humans have different ways to interact. 
For example, women have different hormones and chemicals in their body biologically, that would make them react to things differently than men would. And men and women have different biological abilities that affect how they interact with other people. Women have the ability to give birth. Men don’t. Men are biologically physically stronger than women. 

So, we have two different sexes differing with human interaction based on things that have to do with their biological sex. Now again, this is not the case for every single person, but the majority does matter. Look at the example in my 4th paragraph for proof of that. 

Woman
When I say woman, I am specifically talking about the definition. If gender really is a social construct, then we could theoretically have an infinite number of genders. And if anyone can identify as anything, then what's the point of identifying as anything at all?
All words must have definitions, or else they don’t have meaning. So that goes to show that the words man and woman must have definitions. They are two different words, so they must have two different definitions. 
But if gender is a social construct, then the definitions don’t matter, and it would be going against basic English. 

Here's a challenge:
If gender is a social construct, then define the word woman, without using the word woman. 


Again, thank you for accepting the debate, and I look forward to your argument. 

Con
Thank you, Pro, for hosting this discussion.

Brief Description:
My opponent seems to be making the assumption that biological sex and gender are synonymous. This error can be forgiven, as it is a common mistake that a lot of people make. But there is a distinction between the two.

Gender- 1. Either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior: 2. A similar category of human beings that is outside the male/female binary classification.

Biological Sex- The male, female, or intersex division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.

Social Construct- An idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society.

Rebuttals:

“To start off, we must first define what gender can be if it was a social construct. Since social constructs are based off of human interaction, then if gender was a social construct, it would have to be based off of human interaction, as well. 
 
Human interaction is heavily based in biology. The way we talk, act, and express ourselves is based mostly on what we were biologically born as. 
Now this is not to say that every single person is like this. There are obviously feminine boys, and masculine girls. But the majority of people in the world have the sexual preference, gender identity, and gender expression that goes along with their biological sex.”
 
  1. What does it even mean to be masculine or feminine?
  2. Who or what determines if something is masculine or feminine?
There are many activities and behaviors that are normally considered ‘masculine,’ such as heavy drinking, weight-lifting, and joining the military. But ultimately, who decided that these activities were manly? The answer is society. 

What do XX or XY chromosomes have to do with these things?

“Now we come to human interaction. Humans interact with each other in many ways, but all humans have different ways to interact. 
For example, women have different hormones and chemicals in their body biologically, that would make them react to things differently than men would. And men and women have different biological abilities that affect how they interact with other people. Women have the ability to give birth. Men don’t. Men are biologically physically stronger than women.”
 
These are all true. However, when society refers to a person, they don’t address them as “male” or “female.” Pre-adolescent and adolescent males are called ‘boys,’ and when they reach adulthood, they are called ‘men.’ It’s the same idea with ‘girls’ and ‘women.’
 
In certain ancient societies, boys were not considered men until they completed a rite of passage. But these traditions were a product of socially-established norms. 
 
“Woman
When I say woman, I am specifically talking about the definition. If gender really is a social construct, then we could theoretically have an infinite number of genders. And if anyone can identify as anything, then what's the point of identifying as anything at all?”
 
This is a subjective question, not a retort. 
 
“All words must have definitions, or else they don’t have meaning. So that goes to show that the words man and woman must have definitions. They are two different words, so they must have two different definitions. 
But if gender is a social construct, then the definitions don’t matter, and it would be going against basic English.”
 
Most of this is rambling. This doesn’t really address whether or not gender is a social construct.
 
“Here's a challenge:
If gender is a social construct, then define the word woman, without using the word woman.”
 
“an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”
 
Conclusion:
  • “Many people use the terms “gender” and “sex” interchangeably. However, gender and sex actually refer to two separate things.
  • Gender is an identity — your personal sense of who you are. The term can also refer to socially constructed categories that relate to what it means to be a man or a woman.
  • Sex refers to biological and physiological characteristics. Your genitals, hormones, and chromosomes all relate to your sex.”
 
                    https://www.verywellmind.com

Round 2
Pro
Thank you for your response, I very much appreciate it.  

Rebuttals:

Biological Sex- The male, female, or intersex division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.
The intersex division that you brought up, is not actually a real third division of biological sex. 
Yes, intersex people exist, but they only make up about 0.018% of the population. 
"Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%."
And even then, they all still have chromosomal traits that they can the doctors can use to identify weather they are male or female. 
Being intersex is more of a disorder than a third biological sex. 

My opponent seems to be making the assumption that biological sex and gender are synonymous. This error can be forgiven, as it is a common mistake that a lot of people make. But there is a distinction between the two.
Gender is based in biological sex and has been for thousands of years. There is no distinction. A man is a biological human male, and a woman is a biological human female.


  1. What does it even mean to be masculine or feminine?
  2. Who or what determines if something is masculine or feminine?
To be masculine, is do things that are considered masculine. Like the example you gave: "heavy drinking, weight-lifting, and joining the military."
There are many activities and behaviors that are normally considered ‘masculine,’ such as heavy drinking, weight-lifting, and joining the military. But ultimately, who decided that these activities were manly? The answer is society. 
Of course, woman can do those things as well, because there are masculine girls, but more men are going to be doing those things, not based on social norms, but based on biological ability.
What do XX or XY chromosomes have to do with these things?
Let's use the examples you gave:

Heavy drinking:
More men are prone to drink heavily. Yes, woman can be heavy drinkers too, but men are better, and have an easier time heavy drinking, because of biology:
"Yes. There are several reasons for this. Our bodies contain proportionately less water and more fat than men's bodies. Water dilutes alcohol and fat retains it, so our organs are exposed to higher concentrations of alcohol for longer periods of time. Also, women have less alcohol dehydrogenase, an enzyme that breaks down alcohol before it reaches the bloodstream. At any given dose, our blood levels of alcohol will be higher than a man's, even taking into account differences in body weight. As a result, one drink for a woman is roughly equivalent to two drinks for a man."


Weightlifting:
Same goes for this. More men are prone to do weightlifting, and exercise. Woman can do these things too, but men are better at it, and woman have a harder time doing it than men do. This is why it is a masculine trait:
"Specifically, the absolute totalbody strength of women has been reported as being roughly 67% that of men. Further, the gender differences in absolute strength vary according to the areas of the body that are being compared. As an example, a review of nine studies by Laubach (1976) revealed that, in comparison to men, the absolute lower-body and upper-body strength of women is about 57 - 86% (averaging 71.9%) and 35 - 79% (averaging 55.8%), respectively. So in absolute terms, men are much stronger than women. However, men are significantly larger and heavier than women. In terms of absolute strength, the greater body size of men gives them a decided advantage over women."


Military:
Men are built better biologically for military duty than women are. Men are more effective to win battles in military duty. The military's job is to produce the best soldiers to fight for their country. Women are biologically weaker than men, so the military would be more of a masculine duty. But like always, there are always exceptions. Overall, though men are stronger, and more built for combat than women are: 
"Some researchers have proposed that since men are on average stronger, taller, and faster than women, they are simply more effective in winning battles. Others have suggested that this pattern occurs because the costs of warfare are lower for men, as the risks of dying or being injured are offset by the opportunity to obtain more sexual partners in case of victory. This isn’t true for women because they can only produce a limited number of offspring and so there’s little or no evolutionary advantage to obtaining more partners."




These are all true. However, when society refers to a person, they don’t address them as “male” or “female.” Pre-adolescent and adolescent males are called ‘boys,’ and when they reach adulthood, they are called ‘men.’ It’s the same idea with ‘girls’ and ‘women.’
 
In certain ancient societies, boys were not considered men until they completed a rite of passage. But these traditions were a product of socially-established norms. 
I agree. What does this have to do with what I was arguing?
Please elaborate.
Thank you. 



This is a subjective question, not a retort. 
I would disagree. It is not directed towards any feelings or perceptions. The basic question, is if anyone can identify as anything they want, at any time, then what is the point for identifying with anything in the first place?



“an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”
Well, there are many problems with this definition of a woman. 

First off, they use the word female in their definition. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word female as: 
"of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes."
A biological man cannot identify with the female sex, because they don't, and never will have the ability to bear offspring, produce eggs, and be fertilized by a male. 

an adult who lives and identifies as female
This part of the definition of is excluding the Transgender men, who identify as a woman, but live the same way a man would. 

Let's not also forget, that the Cambridge English Dictionary had changed their definition of a woman. The definition prior to this one was:
"An adult female human being"

I wouldn't trust a source that changes the English language definitions.



Conclusion
No matter how you put it, Gender always leads back to the basic biology of sex. It is not a socially made construct, it is based off of sex and sex alone. 

Thank you for your arguments. I look forward to seeing your next argument. 


Sources
Con
“Gender” and “sex” have been used interchangeably, but they are not the same. 

Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours.


“Sex” refers to the physical differences between people who are male, female, or intersex. A person typically has their sex assigned at birth based on physiological characteristics, including their genitalia and chromosome composition. This assigned sex is called a person’s “natal sex.”Gender, on the other hand, involves how a person identifies. Unlike natal sex, gender is not made up of binary forms. Instead, gender is a broad spectrum. A person may identify at any point within this spectrum or outside of it entirely.

In the most basic sense, sex is biologically determined and gender is culturally determined.


Rebuttals:
Heavy drinking
More men are prone to drink heavily. Yes, woman can be heavy drinkers too, but men are better, and have an easier time heavy drinking, because of biology:
"Yes. There are several reasons for this. Our bodies contain proportionately less water and more fat than men's bodies. Water dilutes alcohol and fat retains it, so our organs are exposed to higher concentrations of alcohol for longer periods of time. Also, women have less alcohol dehydrogenase, an enzyme that breaks down alcohol before it reaches the bloodstream. At any given dose, our blood levels of alcohol will be higher than a man's, even taking into account differences in body weight. As a result, one drink for a woman is roughly equivalent to two drinks for a man."


Weightlifting:
Same goes for this. More men are prone to do weightlifting, and exercise. Woman can do these things too, but men are better at it, and woman have a harder time doing it than men do. This is why it is a masculine trait:
"Specifically, the absolute totalbody strength of women has been reported as being roughly 67% that of men. Further, the gender differences in absolute strength vary according to the areas of the body that are being compared. As an example, a review of nine studies by Laubach (1976) revealed that, in comparison to men, the absolute lower-body and upper-body strength of women is about 57 - 86% (averaging 71.9%) and 35 - 79% (averaging 55.8%), respectively. So in absolute terms, men are much stronger than women. However, men are significantly larger and heavier than women. In terms of absolute strength, the greater body size of men gives them a decided advantage over women."


Military:
Men are built better biologically for military duty than women are. Men are more effective to win battles in military duty. The military's job is to produce the best soldiers to fight for their country. Women are biologically weaker than men, so the military would be more of a masculine duty. But like always, there are always exceptions. Overall, though men are stronger, and more built for combat than women are: 
"Some researchers have proposed that since men are on average stronger, taller, and faster than women, they are simply more effective in winning battles. Others have suggested that this pattern occurs because the costs of warfare are lower for men, as the risks of dying or being injured are offset by the opportunity to obtain more sexual partners in case of victory. This isn’t true for women because they can only produce a limited number of offspring and so there’s little or no evolutionary advantage to obtaining more partners."
I’ll extend my examples.
How about the types of drinks men are likely to choose vs women? 

  • How is it that drinks like beer are considered more ‘masculine’ than fruity drinks which are considered a woman’s drink. The latter usually has a significantly larger alcohol percentage. 

Because it has been stigmatized for men to choose fruitier drinks. 

While it may be true that biology plays a role for certain professions like the military, it is ultimately the judgment of society that categorizes it as ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine.’

Next example is colors. 
  • Why are red and black considered masculine, why are pink and purple feminine? 
Because society categorized it as such. 

How about fashion? 
  • How is it that kilts or skirts are feminine in the US, but Scotsmen (who are considered pure-bred alpha males) wear them all the time? 
  • Heels used to be considered masculine but then societal norms evolved and now only women wear them. 

Now let’s talk about diet. 
  • Why is eating fruits and vegetables something men avoid? 
Something that is healthy is avoided because it has been genderized. 

Why is cigar-smoking considered a masculine thing when there is no biology that inhibits a male or female from partaking? 

Why is painting your nails only a woman’s thing? 

Because SOCIETY. SOCIETY. SOCIETY.

Yes, biology is a factor in a few of my examples, but is mostly irrelevant in what gets characterized as ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine.’ 

Certain traits are labeled manly or womanly because of trends coming and going. 

I would disagree. It is not directed towards any feelings or perceptions. The basic question, is if anyone can identify as anything they want, at any time, then what is the point for identifying with anything in the first place?
I don’t know.
It is possible that I agree with this, but it wouldn’t change anything about what I said. 

Let's not also forget, that the Cambridge English Dictionary had changed their definition of a woman. The definition prior to this one was:
"An adult female human being"

I wouldn't trust a source that changes the English language definitions.
This is pretty standard practice for most dictionaries. The English language is fluid (not a pun, I swear.), so adjustments are made frequently to keep definitions modernized. 

Every three months the entire OED database is republished online, with new words added for the first time and older entries revised according the exacting standards of modern historical lexicography. The Oxford English Dictionary is changing.

A biological man cannot identify with the female sex, because they don't, and never will have the ability to bear offspring, produce eggs, and be fertilized by a male. 
I don’t disagree with this, but that’s irrelevant to his ability to undergo female hormone therapy and start dressing, identifying as a woman. 




Round 3
Pro
Again, I thank you for your response.

Rebuttals:
Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours.
Canadian Health is also promoting assisted suicide, which is now the #1 cause of death in Canada. So, I don't think getting health information from them is such a good idea. 
Nonetheless, I can still point out flaws in this citation.  

If you look at the last sentence, it points out:
"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors."
Gender in of itself is not socially constructed, rather some (not all) of the behaviors are constructed by society. 

I'm not arguing that certain behaviors in society are not socially constructed. I am arguing that gender is not socially constructed. 
If gender was socially constructed, then the citation you used would have said gender is the socially constructed roles, behaviors." 

Different societies behave in different ways, but the majority of the time, gender roles stay the same. 

“Sex” refers to the physical differences between people who are male, female, or intersex. A person typically has their sex assigned at birth based on physiological characteristics, including their genitalia and chromosome composition. This assigned sex is called a person’s “natal sex.”Gender, on the other hand, involves how a person identifies. Unlike natal sex, gender is not made up of binary forms. Instead, gender is a broad spectrum. A person may identify at any point within this spectrum or outside of it entirely.
If gender is a broad spectrum, then that has to coincide with the idea, that there are more than two genders. Now we have to ask ourselves, if there are more than two genders, then what are those other "genders" besides male and female based on? 
Surely, they can't just be based on how you feel. I could feel like I am both a man and a woman, but that doesn't make me a man and a woman. 
The point I am trying to make, is that the terms man and woman, are based on the biological term's male and female. Any other "gender" wouldn't be based off of anything. If your feelings are going against facts, and basic biology, then those feelings are false. 
Facts don't care about your feelings. 

In the most basic sense, sex is biologically determined and gender is culturally determined.

If gender is culturally determined, then how have there been thousands of different cultures around the world, yet the gender roles in the majority of societies have stayed the same?
Because it is based on your biological abilities and strong suits, not how you felt. 

I’ll extend my examples.
How about the types of drinks men are likely to choose vs women? 

  • How is it that drinks like beer are considered more ‘masculine’ than fruity drinks which are considered a woman’s drink. The latter usually has a significantly larger alcohol percentage.
The behavior of drinking is socially constructed. But the gender differences that prefer different drinks are not because gender is socially constructed, it is because the behavior is socially constructed. And as always there are outliers like men who like fruitier drinks than women do. 
We could even go deep into this and say that the reason for men preferring beer over fruity drinks like for example, wine is because on average, men drink more than women, and beer is cheaper than wine. So, if more men are drinking more, than women, then it makes sense for them to go for the cheapest option.  
  • "Almost 58% of adult men report drinking alcohol in the past 30 days compared with 49% of adult women.1
  • Men are more likely to binge drink than women. Approximately 21% of men report binge drinking, compared with 13% of women."



 While it may be true that biology plays a role for certain professions like the military, it is ultimately the judgment of society that categorizes it as ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine.’
No, it is not. You can't categorize the military as feminine. Women are far weaker than men, and in fact, the only reason for the number of women that are in the US military right now, is because we have lowered PT standards. If we hadn't of lowered PT standards, then you would see little to no women in our military. 
"Following a three-year review, the Army has scrapped plans to use the same physical fitness test for all soldiers, choosing instead to have some reduced standards to allow women and older soldiers to pass, the service announced Wednesday."

Next example is colors. 
  • Why are red and black considered masculine, why are pink and purple feminine? 
Now this is a good example of a societally made trait, and I would agree that masculine and feminine colors have been societally made. But It's the colors that have been societally changed, and not the genders. 



How about fashion? 
  • How is it that kilts or skirts are feminine in the US, but Scotsmen (who are considered pure-bred alpha males) wear them all the time? 
  • Heels used to be considered masculine but then societal norms evolved and now only women wear them. 
Kilts are a cultural thing is Scotland, but the reason it started there was not a social reason:
"First worn by those who lived in the Scottish Highlands, the kilt was a manner of dress that afforded the fighting army with possibly its most useful tool. Prior to 1792 those who wanted to wear the kilt in the Lowlands or Britain, had to join the British army. The reason being that because of the swift and competent movements of the Highland armies, the English were afraid that if they let anyone wear the kilt it would spark the idea of revolution."


Now heels used to be a symbol of power/status, because they were more expensive, and men wearing them, were letting everyone know that they were wealthy. 
"Whereas men’s heels once symbolized power, wealth, and masculinity, today they tend to push the boundaries of binary gender norms."



Now let’s talk about diet. 
  • Why is eating fruits and vegetables something men avoid? 
Something that is healthy is avoided because it has been genderized. 
Well, I don't know about you, but I see a lot of men eating healthy, and the opposite for a lot of women, especially in America. 


Why is cigar-smoking considered a masculine thing when there is no biology that inhibits a male or female from partaking? 

Why is painting your nails only a woman’s thing? 

Because SOCIETY. SOCIETY. SOCIETY.
Well, men have a better response to smoking than women do, and there is a biological difference there. 
"Results from neuroimaging studies suggest that smoking activates men’s reward pathways more than women's.131 This finding is consistent with the idea that men smoke for the reinforcing effects of nicotine, whereas women smoke to regulate mood or in response to cigarette-related cues."

Painting nails can, and usually is a sign of beauty. Women wear more makeup than men, because women biologically speaking, like to make themselves look pretty, more than men do. 
"The vast majority of women’s style decisions are made for themselves, not for the benefit of the opposite sex"



This is pretty standard practice for most dictionaries. The English language is fluid (not a pun, I swear.), so adjustments are made frequently to keep definitions modernized. 
This doesn't clarify what I said before, about their definition of woman is flawed. 



I don’t disagree with this, but that’s irrelevant to his ability to undergo female hormone therapy and start dressing, identifying as a woman. 
When someone claims to be a woman, even though biologically they are not, they are not a woman. It doesn't matter what they do to make themselves feel like a woman, that doesn't make them a woman. 



Thank you, and I look forward to your next argument. 


Sources:
Con
Rebuttals:
Canadian Health is also promoting assisted suicide, which is now the #1 cause of death in Canada. So, I don't think getting health information from them is such a good idea. 
Please note that the first response doesn’t attack the factual accuracy of the source, but instead makes two bold claims. 

Firstly, I presume Pro is referring to the euphanasia law passed in 2016 that allowed terminally ill patients to request death. 


Secondly, he claims assisted suicide is now the leading cause of death in Canada, but I could find no sources indicating this is true. 


Even if this were a fact, none of this invalidates the research suddenly because the root has engaged in morally depraved behavior. 

If you look at the last sentence, it points out:
"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors."
Gender in of itself is not socially constructed, rather some (not all) of the behaviors are constructed by society. 

I'm not arguing that certain behaviors in society are not socially constructed. I am arguing that gender is not socially constructed. 
If gender was socially constructed, then the citation you used would have said gender is the socially constructed roles, behaviors." 

Pro is choosing to ignore the established semantics by arguing over the irrelevancies of the ambiguous word choice, using the vagueness as proof that his interpretation of said definition must be superior. 


Different societies behave in different ways, but the majority of the time, gender roles stay the same. 
In historical societies, women were sometimes forced into marriages and couldn’t do anything about it. In ancient Sparta, women had military training. 

The fact that gender roles may have stayed the same only proves that socio-cultural traditions remained psychological conditioned into civilization. 


If gender is a broad spectrum, then that has to coincide with the idea, that there are more than two genders. Now we have to ask ourselves, if there are more than two genders, then what are those other "genders" besides male and female based on? 
Surely, they can't just be based on how you feel. I could feel like I am both a man and a woman, but that doesn't make me a man and a woman. 
The point I am trying to make, is that the terms man and woman, are based on the biological term's male and female. Any other "gender" wouldn't be based off of anything. If your feelings are going against facts, and basic biology, then those feelings are false. 
Facts don't care about your feelings. 
Once again, you’re making the correlation that gender and biological sex are the same. 

No one is denying their biological sex by assuming a different gender. Only biological sex is binary, but the gender spectrum is non-binary. 


We are not discussing biology, we are discussing semantics. 

If gender is culturally determined, then how have there been thousands of different cultures around the world, yet the gender roles in the majority of societies have stayed the same?
Because it is based on your biological abilities and strong suits, not how you felt. 
The gender roles stayed the same because of culturally held beliefs. 

Well, men have a better response to smoking than women do, and there is a biological difference there. 
"Results from neuroimaging studies suggest that smoking activates men’s reward pathways more than women's.131 This finding is consistent with the idea that men smoke for the reinforcing effects of nicotine, whereas women smoke to regulate mood or in response to cigarette-related cues."
The fact that men enjoy it more doesn’t explain why it is labeled masculine. 

When someone claims to be a woman, even though biologically they are not, they are not a woman. It doesn't matter what they do to make themselves feel like a woman, that doesn't make them a woman. 
If a trans-woman claimed they were biologically born male, that’s a lie. The fact that they became a woman doesn’t change their biological sex, which is separate from gender. 

Thank you, Pro, for the response. 

Round 4
Pro
Thank you for your argument.

Rebuttals:
Please note that the first response doesn’t attack the factual accuracy of the source, but instead makes two bold claims. 

Firstly, I presume Pro is referring to the euphanasia law passed in 2016 that allowed terminally ill patients to request death. 

Using your own source, I can prove this statement wrong. 
"In order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must:
  • be eligible for health services funded by the federal government, or a province or territory (or during the applicable minimum period of residence or waiting period for eligibility)
    • generally, visitors to Canada are not eligible for medical assistance in dying
  • be at least 18 years old and mentally competent. This means being capable of making health care decisions for yourself.
  • have a grievous and irremediable medical condition
  • make a voluntary request for MAID that is not the result of outside pressure or influence
  • give informed consent to receive MAID
Grievous and irremediable medical condition
To be considered as having a grievous and irremediable medical condition, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must:
  • have a serious illness, disease or disability (excluding a mental illness until March 17, 2023)
  • be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed
  • experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable
You do not need to have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible for medical assistance in dying."

This means that patients who aren't even terminal, can apply for assisted suicide. 


Secondly, he claims assisted suicide is now the leading cause of death in Canada, but I could find no sources indicating this is true. 
" In the last eight years, less than 200 people in Colombia have used assistance in dying. In Canada, since legalisation in 2016, some 40,000. The Canadian roll out has been closely watched and reported."

40,000 people have died from it in Canada alone. 


Pro is choosing to ignore the established semantics by arguing over the irrelevancies of the ambiguous word choice, using the vagueness as proof that his interpretation of said definition must be superior. 
Well, if you are going to argue gender is a social construct, then you can't be vague about it. I am pointing out the flaws in the idea that gender is a social construct. If an idea has flaws, and those flaws contradict the whole idea, then that idea is not a valid one.



In historical societies, women were sometimes forced into marriages and couldn’t do anything about it. In ancient Sparta, women had military training. 

The fact that gender roles may have stayed the same only proves that socio-cultural traditions remained psychological conditioned into civilization. 
Like I said, most historical societies had basic gender roles. 

My question for you, is that in civilizations that had no contact with each other whatsoever, why those gender roles stayed the same, or very similar. 
For instance, the Aztecs and Mongolia. Two very different places, with different cultures, but yet they had very similar gender roles:
"As such, Aztec men and women had very different roles.  In general, men were expected to do more laborious work while women were expected to work in the household and care for the family.  For example, women were tasked with caring for young children, preparing meals and repairing clothing."

"Work was divided between men and women; the men handled the herds and went to battle, and women raised the gers, made the clothes, milked the animals, made cheese and cooked the food. Men and women raised their children together."



Once again, you’re making the correlation that gender and biological sex are the same. 

No one is denying their biological sex by assuming a different gender. Only biological sex is binary, but the gender spectrum is non-binary. 


We are not discussing biology, we are discussing semantics. 
Gender is based in biological sex.
If a gender spectrum existed, and there were an infinite number of genders, then what would we base those "other genders" off of? You can't just magically make something exist. It has to be based on something. 
The article you provided states that intersex people are a different biological sex, than men or woman. This is biologically false, because to be a different biological sex than a man or a woman, you would have to have different reproductive systems entirely. Intersex people most of the time are born with both, but they still have defining characteristics that a doctor can identify, to prove that the child is a male or female. 
And even then, they still have certain chromosomes, either XX or XY that can determine whether they are male or female. 
You can't be both male and female, because to make that claim, you would have to have both the ability to impregnate and get pregnant.  

I am claiming that gender is based in biology, and you are claiming it is socially constructed, so that is why I bring up biology. 

The gender roles stayed the same because of culturally held beliefs. 
Again, I bring up this question:
Why did cultures who hadn't even met at that time have similar, if not the same gender roles?


The fact that men enjoy it more doesn’t explain why it is labeled masculine. 
Men's bodies biologically react with more pleasure to cigars than womans body's do. That is why more men smoke. Women still do smoke, but more men smoke than women. 

If a trans-woman claimed they were biologically born male, that’s a lie. The fact that they became a woman doesn’t change their biological sex, which is separate from gender. 
 A trans-woman is a biological male, who is claiming to be a woman. If they claimed, they were a biological male, then they would be correct. 
You can't just "become" a woman, just because you feel that way.

Question:
Using the definition of woman, you gave, then why would trans people have to identify as a trans-woman or trans-man. Doesn't that definition already cover that? 

Also, please rebuttal to the point I made about the definition of woman you gave, being flawed. 


Thank you for your argument. I look forward to yours. 

Sources:
Con
Rebuttals:
Using your own source, I can prove this statement wrong. 
"In order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must:
  • be eligible for health services funded by the federal government, or a province or territory (or during the applicable minimum period of residence or waiting period for eligibility)
    • generally, visitors to Canada are not eligible for medical assistance in dying
  • be at least 18 years old and mentally competent. This means being capable of making health care decisions for yourself.
  • have a grievous and irremediable medical condition
  • make a voluntary request for MAID that is not the result of outside pressure or influence
  • give informed consent to receive MAID
Grievous and irremediable medical condition
To be considered as having a grievous and irremediable medical condition, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must:
  • have a serious illness, disease or disability (excluding a mental illness until March 17, 2023)
  • be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed
  • experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable
You do not need to have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible for medical assistance in dying."

This means that patients who aren't even terminal, can apply for assisted suicide. 
This technicality proves nothing, it only demonstrates that the decisions they make are morally and ethically questionable. 

So my main point about the factual accuracy of the data and research goes unchallenged. 

" In the last eight years, less than 200 people in Colombia have used assistance in dying. In Canada, since legalisation in 2016, some 40,000. The Canadian roll out has been closely watched and reported."

40,000 people have died from it in Canada alone. 
Pro is diverting from the topic at hand. If he wants to discuss the ethics of assisted suicide, he should do so and I’ll accept. 

However, Forbes is the least reliable source. A notorious denier of climate change, Larry Bell, once wrote an article stating Global Warming is a hoax. 

Pro has failed to prove that assisted suicide is the leading cause of Death in Canada, an unrelated argument at that. 

Well, if you are going to argue gender is a social construct, then you can't be vague about it. I am pointing out the flaws in the idea that gender is a social construct. If an idea has flaws, and those flaws contradict the whole idea, then that idea is not a valid one.
There’s a difference between deconstructing inconsistencies of an idea and then manufacturing your own meaning because the definition isn’t an absolute. 

ALL of my sources have corroborated my point of contention that gender and biological sex are not the same. Therefore, any claim otherwise at this point is denial. 

My question for you, is that in civilizations that had no contact with each other whatsoever, why those gender roles stayed the same, or very similar. 
For instance, the Aztecs and Mongolia. Two very different places, with different cultures, but yet they had very similar gender roles:
"As such, Aztec men and women had very different roles.  In general, men were expected to do more laborious work while women were expected to work in the household and care for the family.  For example, women were tasked with caring for young children, preparing meals and repairing clothing."

"Work was divided between men and women; the men handled the herds and went to battle, and women raised the gers, made the clothes, milked the animals, made cheese and cooked the food. Men and women raised their children together."
The labor examples may have been based on biology, but their default roles in politics and namely, religion, were determined by their man-made beliefs, social constructs. 


“Radical archaeologists take this information and analyze it to question our own society today – connecting the lives of the ancient past to our cultures today. Did the Aztecs live with exactly the same gender roles as we do today? No. So are gender roles at least partly socially constructed? Yes. Although there was sexism in Aztec gender roles as there is today (women doing indoor work, men doing outdoor), the differences in child-rearing, power structures, and deities are important to note as they are shown to be socially constructed in both contexts.”


Gender is based in biological sex.
If a gender spectrum existed, and there were an infinite number of genders, then what would we base those "other genders" off of? You can't just magically make something exist. It has to be based on something. 
Only two genders are based on biological sex. The rest are not and do not have to be. 

 A trans-woman is a biological male, who is claiming to be a woman. If they claimed, they were a biological male, then they would be correct. 
You can't just "become" a woman, just because you feel that way.

Question:
Using the definition of woman, you gave, then why would trans people have to identify as a trans-woman or trans-man. Doesn't that definition already cover that? 
This is straw-manning my original point. I never claimed a biological male could become a biological female. 

Many trans people have contested the use of the term ‘trans’ and argued that we should refer to them as the gender they identify as. 

Pro has managed to go off-topic twice. The discussion isn’t about whether a male can become a female or whether a female can identify as a man. 

The resolution addresses whether or not gender is a social construct, which I have maintained that it is.
Round 5
Pro
Rebuttals:
Rebuttals:
Using your own source, I can prove this statement wrong. 
"In order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must:
  • be eligible for health services funded by the federal government, or a province or territory (or during the applicable minimum period of residence or waiting period for eligibility)
    • generally, visitors to Canada are not eligible for medical assistance in dying
  • be at least 18 years old and mentally competent. This means being capable of making health care decisions for yourself.
  • have a grievous and irremediable medical condition
  • make a voluntary request for MAID that is not the result of outside pressure or influence
  • give informed consent to receive MAID
Grievous and irremediable medical condition
To be considered as having a grievous and irremediable medical condition, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must:
  • have a serious illness, disease or disability (excluding a mental illness until March 17, 2023)
  • be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed
  • experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable
You do not need to have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible for medical assistance in dying."

This means that patients who aren't even terminal, can apply for assisted suicide. 
This technicality proves nothing, it only demonstrates that the decisions they make are morally and ethically questionable. 

So my main point about the factual accuracy of the data and research goes unchallenged. 

" In the last eight years, less than 200 people in Colombia have used assistance in dying. In Canada, since legalisation in 2016, some 40,000. The Canadian roll out has been closely watched and reported."

40,000 people have died from it in Canada alone. 
Pro is diverting from the topic at hand. If he wants to discuss the ethics of assisted suicide, he should do so and I’ll accept. 

However, Forbes is the least reliable source. A notorious denier of climate change, Larry Bell, once wrote an article stating Global Warming is a hoax. 

Pro has failed to prove that assisted suicide is the leading cause of Death in Canada, an unrelated argument at that. 
Yes, Con is right, this is now gotten out of hand and is off topic. So, let's keep it on the topic at hand. 

There’s a difference between deconstructing inconsistencies of an idea and then manufacturing your own meaning because the definition isn’t an absolute. 

ALL of my sources have corroborated my point of contention that gender and biological sex are not the same. Therefore, any claim otherwise at this point is denial. 
The whole point of a definition is to define. If a definition, can't provide a clear definition, then it is a false definition. 

Some of Con's sources are based in political motives, and not based in facts. 
And yes, I am denying the fact that gender is a social construct, because me, and a lot of factual evidence disagree. To say, because I am denying, means that it is somehow a flaw in my argument, is preposterous. 
If I don't agree, then I am wrong?

The labor examples may have been based on biology, but their default roles in politics and namely, religion, were determined by their man-made beliefs, social constructs. 
We are talking about gender, not politics, religion, or beliefs. 

Only two genders are based on biological sex. The rest are not and do not have to be. 
Con just admitted that two genders are based on biological sex, and not socially constructed. So how can two genders be based on biological sex, and the rest don't have to be. That would make everything else not a gender, but something entirely different. 

Many trans people have contested the use of the term ‘trans’ and argued that we should refer to them as the gender they identify as. 

Pro has managed to go off-topic twice. The discussion isn’t about whether a male can become a female or whether a female can identify as a man. 

The resolution addresses whether or not gender is a social construct, which I have maintained that it is.
Con has not maintained it is, because you just admitted it to be based in biology. 
And I have not gone off topic twice. I am following the facts, to the logical conclusion. 

And if trans people identify as trans, then what is the point of changing the definition of a woman?

Con still has yet to give me a clear-cut definition of a woman. 


Thank you for your argument, I look forward to your final argument. 
Con
Conclusions:
  • Clearly explained the distinction between biological sex and gender with sources corroborating this point.
  • Explained the role of gender in identity politics.
  • Used real life examples to prove the point that gender characteristics are socially constructed, not biological.
  • Shifted the conversation back on track when the discussion became too much about biology instead of semantics.
Pro’s confusion is due to the mistaken association between gender and biological sex. He disagrees with the definitions of my sources that have already been established but fails to refute it with a superior source. He mentions gender binary is based on biological sex but doesn’t understand that “based on” doesn’t mean “same as.” 
 
He goes off-topic when discrediting my Canada Health source, pointing out they support assisted suicide. This doesn’t disprove factual accuracy, it only means they make morally questionable choices. But it isn’t a discussion about the ethics of euthanasia. This is a subject about gender and social constructs.
Vote CON.

“The whole point of a definition is to define. If a definition, can't provide a clear definition, then it is a false definition. 
 
Some of Con's sources are based in political motives, and not based in facts. 
And yes, I am denying the fact that gender is a social construct, because me, and a lot of factual evidence disagree. To say, because I am denying, means that it is somehow a flaw in my argument, is preposterous. 
If I don't agree, then I am wrong?”
 
Yes. Words and definitions are social constructs.
 
“We are talking about gender, not politics, religion, or beliefs.

You mention gender roles and use biology to defend your argument but ignore the hand that politics, religion, and cultural beliefs play in this. They too, are an extension of gender roles and therefore social constructs.
 
“Con just admitted that two genders are based on biological sex, and not socially constructed. So how can two genders be based on biological sex, and the rest don't have to be. That would make everything else not a gender, but something entirely different.”
 
The same way two movies are based on the first novel and the sequel, but other continuities of the franchise exist independently. 
 
“And if trans people identify as trans, then what is the point of changing the definition of a woman?”
 
Extending my quote from earlier.
“Many trans people have contested the use of the term ‘trans’ and argued that we should refer to them as the gender they identify as.”
 
                  https://www.verywellmind.com
                  WOMAN | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
                  https://www.meninheels.com
                  https://rewriting.com
                  https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html