Instigator / Pro
16
1472
rating
32
debates
48.44%
won
Topic
#4446
There exists, 2 genders only, in the human race.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3
After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
YouFound_Lxam
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
15
1524
rating
53
debates
75.47%
won
Description
I will not be providing the definition of gender to this debate, because that is basically what the whole debate is about. If I were to provide a definition with only male and female, then I would be biased in the definitions and vice versa. But I will add:
Gender: Is in fact a social construct.
Basically, that is all there is to it.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate.
My beginning argument will be short and simple.
Gender is a social construct. Social constructs must be based on something real. Every idea has to be based off of something that can be perceived. This means that Gender must be based upon something real. Biological sex is real. Gender is based off of biological. sex. There is the male gender and the female gender. If Con argues that there are more than 2 genders, they must base that gender off of something in reality. Also, this gender must be its own gender. Any "other gender" that has any basis on the male and female gender, is not considered a separate gender, but a perception of one of the 2 genders.
That is my first argument. Short and sweet.
Con
#2
Thanks YouFoundLiam,
1. Opening:
I believe this is one of the 'hot topics' in the world right now, are there more than two genders? So, controversially, my position supports there are more than two genders. Beyond female and male, which will be supported by the following contentions below.
2. Burden of Proof:
The BoP is mostly on con due to the circumstances of providing that more than two genders exist. Pro only needs to disprove of all of cons contentions.
3. Contentions
I. Difference between gender and sex
Sex is something that is considered biological. Biologically you are either male, female, or intersex.
Gender can be considered a social construct. As of which is how they choose to identify. The individual is themselves choose their gender identity.
Heres something that you should consider:
"Sex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex. Gender is often defined as a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that varies between societies and over time. Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary."
II. Existing
What makes something exist? As long as we claim it is something, it exists. So yeah, since humans (even if just one person) claim that there are more than two genders which can be nonbinary as an example.
Exist is a playword. You even consider gender a social construct, as of which means it exists.
III. Genders
This one is simple. This one just provides some genders that are needed to completly fulfill my burden.
Some (but not all) gender identities:
- Transgender
- Two-Spirit
- Cisgender
- Non-Binary
- Genderqueer
- Gender expression
- Gender fluid
- Gender neutral
4. Rebuttals:
Beginning:
Gender is a social construct. Social constructs must be based on something real. Every idea has to be based off of something that can be perceived. This means that Gender must be based upon something real. Biological sex is real.
To confirm that is not what a social construct is, it does not have to be real. Let me reinstate the meaning:
What is a social construt? (Merriam-Webster)
: an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society
This does not have to be based on something real at all. Though I will say, gender is real, social construct does work in this case.
Middle:
Gender is based off of biological. sex. There is the male gender and the female gender.
There is a huge misconception between sex and gender. Though I already knew this would occur, my first contention already follows up.
Gender is, I repeat, not based on biological sex.
You can however say "Only the male and female sex in the human race currently exist", which would also be false, but I won't get into high details).
End:
If Con argues that there are more than 2 genders, they must base that gender off of something in reality. Also, this gender must be its own gender. Any "other gender" that has any basis on the male and female gender, is not considered a separate gender, but a perception of one of the 2 genders.
Sure thing, my second contention provides a list of genders (not sexes).
If we wake up to reality, also per third contention, as long as someone has claimed it, it exists. As long as someone is, for example, transgender then it exists.
These are separate genders.
5. Notes:
- Consider because we are not talking about sex, there is no need for the mentions of biological intersex. Which yes, is a sex and not a gender. It does not classify as female or male which as said, is biological. I didn't get into it because it would overall, rerail the topic. Though it is a way to disprove both the concept that there is only two genders and two biological sexes.
6. Review:
- Pro has a misconception and has tried to sway this debate the wrong way.
7. Sources:
Round 2
Pro
#3
Rebuttals:
I. Difference between gender and sexSex is something that is considered biological. Biologically you are either male, female, or intersex.Gender can be considered a social construct. As of which is how they choose to identify. The individual is themselves choose their gender identity.
Although I do not completely agree with this definition of gender, I will allow it, as it does nothing to contradict my argument.
Heres something that you should consider:"Sex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex. Gender is often defined as a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that varies between societies and over time. Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary."
Con has made a fatal mistake in this definition of sex.
Sex is categorized as either male or female, nothing else.
Intersex individuals do not lie on a separate category of sex. Sex is binary. This is a very simple biological fact.
I would like to point out that Con has made a statement in which they have incorrectly defined biology, and is something that should be taken into consideration.
What makes something exist? As long as we claim it is something, it exists. So yeah, since humans (even if just one person) claim that there are more than two genders which can be nonbinary as an example.Exist is a playword. You even consider gender a social construct, as of which means it exists.
Another fatal mistake on Cons part.
There is a definition of exist:
"have objective reality or being"
Now I will give Con the benefit of the doubt on this mistake, but just from now on make sure to use reality to argue with words.
III. Genders
This one is simple. This one just provides some genders that are needed to completly fulfill my burden.
Some (but not all) gender identities:
- Transgender
- Two-Spirit
- Cisgender
- Non-Binary
- Genderqueer
- Gender expression
- Gender fluid
- Gender neutral
Firstly, I would like for Con to describe each and every one of these so called genders, and why they are different from each other, and why they are defined as a gender.
Secondly, these so called genders have no basis in any biological identification, therefore cannot be considered genders. At the very least, they can be described as personality traits (how one acts, and feels differently from each other), but not a gender.
To confirm that is not what a social construct is, it does not have to be real. Let me reinstate the meaning:What is a social construt? (Merriam-Webster): an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a societyThis does not have to be based on something real at all. Though I will say, gender is real, social construct does work in this case.
Con is trying to define social construct as only something created in the mind and not affected in any way by reality itself. This is an outlandish take, given that almost everything that we can possibly dream of is somewhat based in our reality.
For example, here are some social constructs:
Race: Based off of the reality of different pigments in skin color.
Gender: Based off of the biological reality of the 2 sex's.
Nationality: Based off of where someone may have been born in the world.
Childhood: Based off of the immaturity of a human who has not lived/existed for an extended amount of time.
Age: The numbers we give ourselves based upon the amount of times the earth goes around the sun while we are alive
Intelligence: Based off of the amount of facts, and or equations that an individual possesses.
Beauty: Based on the real perception of others, and how they judge and individual based on their physical characteristics.
Now not all of these definitions are completely up to perfection, but they prove my point in saying all social constructs must have some basis in reality.
Even a silly social construct like a unicorn is based upon the idea of a horse (that exists in reality) with a horn (that exist in reality).
Middle:Gender is based off of biological. sex. There is the male gender and the female gender.There is a huge misconception between sex and gender. Though I already knew this would occur, my first contention already follows up.Gender is, I repeat, not based on biological sex.You can however say "Only the male and female sex in the human race currently exist", which would also be false, but I won't get into high details).
If gender is not based upon biological sex, and gender is a social construct, then what is it based upon?
Sure thing, my second contention provides a list of genders (not sexes).If we wake up to reality, also per third contention, as long as someone has claimed it, it exists. As long as someone is, for example, transgender then it exists.
Con has just contradicted themselves.
They just claimed that as long as something is claimed to exist, then it exists. They use transgenderism as an example.
But transgenderism has a definitions, therefore is not something that was just claimed to exists. The idea of transgenderism has existed for quite some time in some ancient Pegan society's.
Also Transgenderism has a physical mental disorder tied to it. Gender dysphoria.
To conclude with this part, something cannot be based upon nothing. Even the idea of nothing is based upon something.
5. Notes:- Consider because we are not talking about sex, there is no need for the mentions of biological intersex. Which yes, is a sex and not a gender. It does not classify as female or male which as said, is biological. I didn't get into it because it would overall, rerail the topic. Though it is a way to disprove both the concept that there is only two genders and two biological sexes.
With some research, every single person born with the intersex condition can be tied back to 1 biological sex, no matter how screwed up they are.
Conclusion:
Con has repeatedly tried to define reality, has already contradicted themselves multiple times, has concluded that something can exist from nothing whatsoever, and has tried to change the definition's.
I look forward to Cons next argument.
Vote Pro.
Con
#4
1. Extending:
All previous contentions.
2. Defense:
I. Defense
(Difference between gender and sex)
Rebuttals:I. Difference between gender and sexSex is something that is considered biological. Biologically you are either male, female, or intersex.Gender can be considered a social construct. As of which is how they choose to identify. The individual is themselves choose their gender identity.Although I do not completely agree with this definition of gender, I will allow it, as it does nothing to contradict my argument.
I hope you do know this contention completely disregards what you say, but alright. There's nothing you really could contest it with anyways.
Con has made a fatal mistake in this definition of sex.Sex is categorized as either male or female, nothing else.Intersex individuals do not lie on a separate category of sex. Sex is binary. This is a very simple biological fact.
This is not a debate about sex, its a gender debate.
Now that's out of the way..
--
Alright, our concern is gender not sex anyways. However, if its not clear they are a mix of both, you are not categorized as one. We are not focused on the fact that sex is binary or not, which I don't believe, but that doesn't matter. Let's get on the real topic.
Just a litle something:
"People who are intersex have reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn't fit into an exclusively male or female (binary) sex classification."
I would like to point out that Con has made a statement in which they have incorrectly defined biology, and is something that should be taken into consideration.
Okay, thank you so much. Even though sex once again, has nothing to do with gender. Voters, keep in mind that pro is derailing this topic into sex. We are talking about gender rather than sex. If you choose to keep my faulty in mind, sure, but since it was a definition of sex (which intersex can be its own sex) it doesn't matter. As said, this is if there are two genders not a sex debate.
II. Middle Defense
(Existing)
Another fatal mistake on Cons part.There is a definition of exist:"have objective reality or being"Now I will give Con the benefit of the doubt on this mistake, but just from now on make sure to use reality to argue with words.
Cool, we have a definition. Let's put it simpler.
What does exist mean?
So: to have actual being : be real.
Now, pro must ask themselves, is gender real? Now, to help pro out, do the gender female and male exist?
Now, if pro says the female and male gender exist, then anything, that is under the definition of gender exists.
If pro tries to contest this it's either going to go two ways:
A- Denies female and male exist as a gender
B- Denies that every gender (besides female and male) under the term gender are real.
Now if they do B, which is most likely it, under the terms of my definition of gender, how can you possibibily deny?
IIII. Final Defense
(Genders)
Firstly, I would like for Con to describe each and every one of these so called genders, and why they are different from each other, and why they are defined as a gender.
You really put my work out for me, huh? Alright, so be it.
Disclaimer: I cannot copy and paste all definitions of my listed genders until the next round because of the character limit.
This is going to be most if not all will copied responses because I believe they are more elaborate in spotting the key differences.
First off, lets go with the more common genders you'll most likely hear:
Cisgender (added): A cisgender person has a gender identity that matches their sex assigned at birth.
Gender fluid: Gender fluidity is a non-fixed gender identity that shifts over time or depending on the situation. These fluctuations can occur at the level of gender identity or gender expression.
Transgender: Now, before I state the definition. I already know ahead of time the pro will bring up something along the lines of "they were once a female or male" or "they are female or male". Alright, so, that was there biological sex however there gender is transgender. Yes, as transgender we should be respectful and addresses them as female or male, but they are considered transgender (as there gender). You would hear it be referred to as "transgender male/female"..
Definition: denoting or relating to a person whose gender identity does not correspond with the sex registered for them at birth.
Non-Binary: The term “nonbinary” is often used to describe someone whose gender identity isn't exclusively male or female.
Cisgender is going based on your biological sex, you identify as that. Now, whats the difference between that and gender fluid? Gender fluid is switching your gender based on a situation, it shifts. That is a clear difference. Transgender is idenifying as the opposite of your biological sex, but Non-Binary is indentifying as neither female or male.
Non-Binary is a good example of not basing it off of biological sex either, since they are neither.
Summary version: All genders have factors that can be intertwined almost like the same thing, but not the same thing. They are unquie in there own ways.
Secondly, these so called genders have no basis in any biological identification, therefore cannot be considered genders. At the very least, they can be described as personality traits (how one acts, and feels differently from each other), but not a gender.
Pro, i'm going to need you to reread my first contention. Until then, I won't keep repeating myself. It would be "therefore cannot be considered sexes" but we aren't talking about that.
Gender is not supposed to be biological identification.
In the last part of your sentence: "At the very least, they can be described as personality traits (how one acts, and feels differently from each other), but not a gender."
They are considered genders, hence the addition of genders. I'm not sure pro knows what a gender is? Gender includes those factors, but it is not a personality trait.
Con is trying to define social construct as only something created in the mind and not affected in any way by reality itself. This is an outlandish take, given that almost everything that we can possibly dream of is somewhat based in our reality.
Social construct can be something created in the mind. And something created in the mind, once projected, can also affect reality as well. You state to yourself, though incorrect: At the very least, they can be described as personality traits (how one acts, and feels differently from each other), but not a gender." If you act, display, or express how your gender is, then it is real.
For example, here are some social constructs:...Gender: Based off of the biological reality of the 2 sex's.
I won't be commenting on all of your examples, just one.
So, do you see your mistake? ".. of the 2 sexes" no, it's not. There is a difference between gender and sex. Gender is, as I have repeated multiple times, not sex.
If gender is not based upon biological sex, and gender is a social construct, then what is it based upon
How you feel inside and how you express your gender through clothing, behavior, and personal appearance.
I said in the beginning: "As of which is how they choose to identify. The individual themselves choose their gender identity."
Con has just contradicted themselves.They just claimed that as long as something is claimed to exist, then it exists. They use transgenderism as an example.But transgenderism has a definitions, therefore is not something that was just claimed to exists. The idea of transgenderism has existed for quite some time in some ancient Pegan society's.
It doesn't just have to be something claimed as exisiting, does gender have a definition? Yes. It isn't just claimed to exist, it does exist. I was speaking in general terms, for example, if I have an idea to build a robot, that idea exists.
General terms pro.
3. Backtrack:
(Notes)
With some research, every single person born with the intersex condition can be tied back to 1 biological sex, no matter how screwed up they are.
These notes are not of huge concern due to the fact we are not talking about sex. However lets contest this..
I would like for pro to answer the following:
- What research? Is it possible for you to pull that research and cite it? I would like verification and more knowledge on exactly what i'm refuating.
- How are we defining sex? What really makes a female? What really makes a male?
Right now, I don't have much to say. I can't really disregard anything unless pro provides how along with answering my two questions.
4. Conclusion:
It seems either con is ignoring my first contention entirely or has skimmed over and missed quite a lot. Sex is something that is based off your biological self, however gender is something that is of the individuals choice. It is not up to the biological stats. Contradicting to not contradicting, if I am basing the argument on the real focus of the debate that's all that matters. If we had a debate about weither green apples are good, we focus on that, not if fuji apples were good. That's the fatal mistake of pros, they are comparing two different things as of which one isn't even supposed to be mentioned.
I enjoy this conversation, to an extent cause i'm not sure everythings being followed correctly.
Though, I will now hand it over to you pro.
No, I won't ask for you to vote for me quite yet. It's only the second round, nothings completely set in stone. Don't want to be overconfident, now do we?
Round 3
Pro
#5
This one is going to be longer, so bear with me.
Rebuttals:
Alright, our concern is gender not sex anyways. However, if its not clear they are a mix of both, you are not categorized as one. We are not focused on the fact that sex is binary or not, which I don't believe, but that doesn't matter. Let's get on the real topic.Just a litle something:"People who are intersex have reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn't fit into an exclusively male or female (binary) sex classification."
Let me clear this up for you. Gender and Sex (according to you) are not the same thing. They are in fact two different words, therefore have different meanings. But that does not mean they are separate from each other in the slightest.
If Gender is indeed a social construct, then that means that in order for it to be a social construct it must be based upon something tied to reality. Whether that thing it completely outlandish it has to be tied to reality in some way shape or form.
Gender is how someone identifies. Ok, based off of what? They are identifying based off of what exactly?
What is the basis off of their identification of themselves?
We are going to have to backtrack since all of my arguments having to do with sex, are not going to hold water, because you won't even consider it a possibility. Sex (according to you) is not Gender, but the reality it is intrinsically tied into.
Here's the important question:
If Sex is not the reality that Gender is intrinsically tied to, then what reality is Gender tied into.
Okay, thank you so much. Even though sex once again, has nothing to do with gender. Voters, keep in mind that pro is derailing this topic into sex. We are talking about gender rather than sex. If you choose to keep my faulty in mind, sure, but since it was a definition of sex (which intersex can be its own sex) it doesn't matter. As said, this is if there are two genders not a sex debate.
Sex does have to do with Gender, whether you like it or not. Again, the definition I agreed to does not deny this in any way shape or form. I am simply talking about the reality of Gender, something that Con refuses to account for.
Also, intersex is not its own sex. It is a condition that is prominent in less only about 0.05% of the population. The biological construction of humans, (this is backed by middle school science by the way) is constructed to be male, or female, not intersex. Intersex is what happens when the construction process of humans becomes confused and accidentally constructs a human that is different from the rest. This is not a separate sex. In order for a sex to be separate, it has to have its own unique way of reproduction. In intersex individuals, this is not the case.
Give me one, just one example of one human that can both impregnate a woman, with a child, and become impregnated by another man, and give birth.
What does exist mean?So: to have actual being : be real.Now, pro must ask themselves, is gender real? Now, to help pro out, do the gender female and male exist?Now, if pro says the female and male gender exist, then anything, that is under the definition of gender exists.If pro tries to contest this it's either going to go two ways:A- Denies female and male exist as a genderB- Denies that every gender (besides female and male) under the term gender are real.Now if they do B, which is most likely it, under the terms of my definition of gender, how can you possibibily deny?
What? I am sorry to the people judging but I have to laugh at this.
This is an argument about Gender, and Con is considering the possibility that it doesn't exist?
Gender does exist. It is the 2 identities based upon the reality of biological sex. This is true, and denial of this would be denial of reality itself.
So, to answer your question, the gender female, and male exist, yes.
Now, if pro says the female and male gender exist, then anything, that is under the definition of gender exists.
What does this even mean. I'm sorry if I am not understanding Con, but this does not make any sense.
This is so many fallacies at once.
You are saying that if I accept the reality that female and male exist, then that means that anything else defined as gender exists?
Well, I mean first of all good luck with that logic. Second of all, you can't just put a random name under the definition of gender, and say it is real. You literally can't.
If this were true, I could literally say that Nazis are a gender identify and you have to respect it. I could literally call anything that has ever existed a gender, and that would be, ok?
Con's logic is flawed.
B- Denies that every gender (besides female and male) under the term gender are real.
Ok, yes. This is the road I choose to take. This is exactly what I am arguing.
Now if they do B, which is most likely it, under the terms of my definition of gender, how can you possibibily deny?
Because gender is based upon the reality of biological sex.
Cisgender (added): A cisgender person has a gender identity that matches their sex assigned at birth.Gender fluid: Gender fluidity is a non-fixed gender identity that shifts over time or depending on the situation. These fluctuations can occur at the level of gender identity or gender expression.Transgender: Now, before I state the definition. I already know ahead of time the pro will bring up something along the lines of "they were once a female or male" or "they are female or male". Alright, so, that was there biological sex however there gender is transgender. Yes, as transgender we should be respectful and addresses them as female or male, but they are considered transgender (as there gender). You would hear it be referred to as "transgender male/female"..Definition: denoting or relating to a person whose gender identity does not correspond with the sex registered for them at birth.Non-Binary: The term “nonbinary” is often used to describe someone whose gender identity isn't exclusively male or female.
Ok well a couple of notes.
For someone who says putting labels on someone who doesn't identify that way is rude, you are doing the same thing by calling normal everyday people cisgender. When did anyone accept that title besides the LGBTQ+ community?
Isn't this:
Gender fluidity is a non-fixed gender identity that shifts over time or depending on the situation. These fluctuations can occur at the level of gender identity or gender expression.
The same as this:
The term “nonbinary” is often used to describe someone whose gender identity isn't exclusively male or female.
Also, explain how a gender identity can have a gender in the definition.
You have the non-binary gender, right? But it still contains male and female.
Same as Gender fluidity. These aren't identifications, they are feelings.
If I say I am non-binary, can I be male or female? If yes, then what is the point of being non-binary? I thought being non-binary meant you didn't fit into the binary of male or female, yet your are still identifying that way.
I mean it's right in front of your face:
The term “nonbinary” is often used to describe someone whose gender identity isn't exclusively male or female.
Male and female (two genders) are still the basis of all the other ones.
In the last part of your sentence: "At the very least, they can be described as personality traits (how one acts, and feels differently from each other), but not a gender."They are considered genders, hence the addition of genders. I'm not sure pro knows what a gender is? Gender includes those factors, but it is not a personality trait.
Are male and female a gender?
If yes then non-binary is not a gender, but defined as someone who switches between genders based off of feelings.
Social construct can be something created in the mind.
Based off of something in reality.
Try to imagine something or think of something that has no tie to reality.
If you were in a universe that has never experienced light, you would be unable to fathom the very idea/construct of light.
Try to think of something nobody else can fathom. I will wait.
And something created in the mind, once projected, can also affect reality as well.
You have it backwards. Reality affects social constructs; social constructs don't affect reality.
How you feel inside and how you express your gender through clothing, behavior, and personal appearance.
So do certain clothing's, behaviors, and appearances tie to certain genders?
You have to account for reality at some point Con.
You are saying that gender is based upon the reality of how someone looks?
I mean hey, can't say I disagree with that.
- What research? Is it possible for you to pull that research and cite it? I would like verification and more knowledge on exactly what i'm refuating.
- How are we defining sex? What really makes a female? What really makes a male?
A man is a biological adult human male. A male is a human born with the capability to impregnate the opposite sex, almost always has a penis and testes, and contains more testosterone than the adult human female.
A woman is a biological adult human female. A female is a human born with the capability to get pregnant by the opposite sex, almost always has a vagina and ovaries, and contains more estrogen than the adult human male.
Also:
I do not have many characters left to type with for this argument, so I must leave it at that.
Con
#6
Things are going in circles at this point.
Quick reminder voters, I didn't add a framework, I know. But just for clarification, someone should win only if they prove their burden. Pro has a limiting burden, there limit is they can only argue there is two genders. As con, I have more free range. I am able to do both things, first of all, prove that pro has a misconception. Female and male aren't a gender, Cisgender is a gender. Therefore, pro has proved no gender. And I can also use the genders, that are genders according to the list of all genders we currently have.
Refutations:
Let me clear this up for you. Gender and Sex (according to you) are not the same thing.
Clear it up for me? I feel like this is for you.
But in any case, yes.
But that does not mean they are separate from each other in the slightest.
But they are?
Something that is given to you when you are created versus something that you choose based on how you feel means yes, they are completely different. Take this, one is forced on you (sex), one is chosen by you (gender).
Gender is how someone identifies. Ok, based off of what? They are identifying based off of what exactly?What is the basis off of their identification of themselves?
How they feel.
Here's the important question:If Sex is not the reality that Gender is intrinsically tied to, then what reality is Gender tied into.
How you feel, I have a feeling this is going to be repeated multiple times.
Sex does have to do with Gender, whether you like it or not. Again, the definition I agreed to does not deny this in any way shape or form. I am simply talking about the reality of Gender, something that Con refuses to account for.
Okay, hear this, they are different things. Sex is not gender. Sex is forced upon you, gender is something you have a choice on. For example, I can't change my biological sex but I can change my gender to non-binary as an example.
Also, intersex is not its own sex.
This focus is getting derailed, we aren't talking about sex. However, i'll continue..
It is a condition that is prominent in less only about 0.05% of the population.
But it exists, regardless of population.
The biological construction of humans, (this is backed by middle school science by the way) is constructed to be male, or female, not intersex.
Alright, no need to be like that. You can try to down-grade the extent of my knowledge, unless i'm taking it the wrong way.. Anyways, your choice of words is correct. However, intersex is.
According to the National Institutes of Health (not middle school science by the way but should be taught) it states the following:
"A biological category based on reproductive, anatomical, and genetic characteristics, generally defined as male, female, and intersex."
So, according to the definition placed above of the biological category which is also the biological construction.
Intersex is what happens when the construction process of humans becomes confused and accidentally constructs a human that is different from the rest. This is not a separate sex. In order for a sex to be separate, it has to have its own unique way of reproduction. In intersex individuals, this is not the case.
The following above says it all ^^^^
Also, National Institutes of Health does confirm by saying:
"Sex is used when describing anatomical, chromosomal, hormonal, cellular, and basic biological phenomena. E.g., sex development, sex hormones, sex characteristics."
So your way of talking about sex is false.
Give me one, just one example of one human that can both impregnate a woman, with a child, and become impregnated by another man, and give birth.
I don't need to.
And technically speaking, hermaphrodites can self-reproduce. So, if you count them being impregnated by themselves and giving birth, count them in. I will say, I haven't researched much about hermaphrodites so I won't go into extreme detail.
What? I am sorry to the people judging but I have to laugh at this.This is an argument about Gender, and Con is considering the possibility that it doesn't exist?
Let me confirm that these were options that I predicted you were going to take a route on. These were not confirmed, just a hunch of mine.
Now, as I stated, I predicted the route you were going to use. Not a route I was going to use. However, I will say that I could use option A for myself.
I can actually completely disregard all my ideas about gender and state gender doesn't exist. Therefore denying your "only two genders" because in that argument, genders don't exist. In fact, I can even state that there is only one gender. I have multiple possibilties you only have one. You might be confused as you read this, but I stated Cisgender was a gender, correct? Alright, so if Cisgender is a gender which is your assigned gender which includes indentifiying as your assinged biological sex which is under female and male, then I could completely say there is only one gender. I have loopholes that clear all paths.
But I decided to keep this argument simple, that's alright isn't it?
What does this even mean. I'm sorry if I am not understanding Con, but this does not make any sense.This is so many fallacies at once.You are saying that if I accept the reality that female and male exist, then that means that anything else defined as gender exists?
I had to re-read that statement, and I realized it might be confusing to read at first. That was not my motive.
In other words: If pro states that gender exists, then anything under gender exists. If this doesn't follow, anything under the definition of gender exists as a gender because it is defined as so.
Second of all, you can't just put a random name under the definition of gender, and say it is real. You literally can't.
Gender is something we came up with as humans. Something our minds came with, based on how we feel.
It is not a name, its part of gender as a whole.
Ok, yes. This is the road I choose to take. This is exactly what I am arguing.
I already assumed so. Alright, good luck with that.
Because gender is based upon the reality of biological sex.
Already denied and can be referred back to in any round.
For someone who says putting labels on someone who doesn't identify that way is rude,
I guess pro knows what's rude and what's not rude right now. But they are Cisgender, its as of saying, if you align with your biological self you are what is called someone who identifies Cisgender. Is calling you a human rude when you don't identify as that?
So, is putting the gender Cisgender rude then? Is calling them female or male rude when they identify as something else?
you are doing the same thing by calling normal everyday people cisgender. When did anyone accept that title besides the LGBTQ+ community?
"Normal".. "Guys, he thinks i'm not normal, isn't that so rude??!!"
LGBTQ+
Is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Queer. These are sexualities, not genders. So.. Also Cisgender is under the term of your gender aligning with your biological sex, female, male, or intersex, so in reality all of these "normal" people you are talking about are Cisgender unless they choose to identify else.
You have the non-binary gender, right? But it still contains male and female.
It's my turn to laugh. Non-binary is being not male or female so no, it doesn't contain female or male. Hence, the word, not.
If I say I am non-binary, can I be male or female? If yes, then what is the point of being non-binary?
I thought being non-binary meant you didn't fit into the binary of male or female, yet your are still identifying that way.
I'm still laughing..
It is. Where did it say they were identifying as female or male? They are neither. Also the pronouns, they/them not she/her or he/him. Which verifies that they don't identify
Male and female (two genders) are still the basis of all the other ones.
Pro, Non-Binary means NOT being Cisgender (assigned to your female or male sex) it does not include this.
Are male and female a gender?
No, Cisgender is, but not female and male.
If yes then non-binary is not a gender, but defined as someone who switches between genders based off of feelings.
My response is above, so, yes it doesn't matter. But..
That is gender fludity, not non-binary. To confirm, non-binary is identifying as something that does not align with your biological sex.
So do certain clothing's, behaviors, and appearances tie to certain genders?
No nessarically. But sometimes they do have a realtion. For example, its how you feel inside. And expressing that comes in all different ways, some maybe I didn't even list. In all, it's how you as an individual feels.
A man is a biological adult human male. A male is a human born with the capability to impregnate the opposite sex, almost always has a penis and testes, and contains more testosterone than the adult human female.A woman is a biological adult human female. A female is a human born with the capability to get pregnant by the opposite sex, almost always has a vagina and ovaries, and contains more estrogen than the adult human male.
Example: So, if I have infertility I am no longer consider a female? What am I then?
Conclusion/Overall Review:
- Consider that female and male aren't a gender, it is Cisgender. Cisgender is the realtion to being alligned with your biological sex. So, if you disclude all my other genders then pro would still be wrong. Why? Because there would only be one gender, especially in his book.
- These genders are listed under the genders that humanity has, deny it or not, they are there.
Sources in comments.
Okay, nows the time.. Vote Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
PRO starts out with a very weak effort:
Refuses to define his central term (because most standard dictionaries disprove PRO's claim outright).
Primary argument is childishly oversimple.
AP1: Gender is a social construct
AP2: All social constructs are based on something real
AC1: Gender must be based on something real
BP1: Gender is only based on sex
BP2: Sex is binary
CP2: Therefore, gender is binary
I think CON could have won this debate by using any widely accepted definition of GENDER and demonstrating PRO's lack of understanding of that term. CON undermines their own argument by buying into the controversy and accepting the majority burden of proof. Still, CON devastates PRO's argument by citing NPR's usage guide asserting three sexes and at least three genders and explaining that social constructs vary by society and time. PRO's AP2, BP1, and BP2 are all authoritatively falsified here. CON wastes time definiting EXISTENCE- notoriously difficult to define and there's much simpler ways of disproving that social constructs are always based on something real: Monarchies are social constructs asserting that some humans are chosen by the gods to rule. America is founded on the notion that not all social constructs are real. CON then gives 8 examples of current social constructs recognized by some societies (I would have like to have seen heavy citation here: really demonstrate that these constructs have currency in modern psychological, medical, scientific thinking. CON rebuttals are rather muddled. CON really needed to defend the current state of the social construct in modern science. Statements like "as long as someone claims it, it exists" undermines the shared understanding of social construct and does not help the case.
In R2, PRO accepts CON's definition of gender as " The individual is themselves choose their gender identity." Poor grammar aside, PRO's acceptance of GENDER as rooted in self-indentity necessarily sets the reality of sex in favor of perception, even unprovable self-perceptions. PRO really kills his argument in R2 by providing a list of social constructs, all of which he claims have an objective reality but many of which are generally accepted as NOT based on any objective reality: beauty, intelligence, race, etc. PRO demands a description of all the genders CON has listed and CON wins this debate by providing mainstream, objective definitions to which PRO barely responds and offers absolute zero expert thinking in contradiction.
R3 continues essentially the same- PRO asserts his own biased reality as truth without presenting scientific evidence, CON is more in touch with mainstream thinking but is too ethereal: a few concise statements establishing that social constructs need not be based in reality would have effectively killed PRO's case in a few short statements.
ARGUMENT to CON.
SOURCES easily to go CON for using objective sources to define a number of terms, particularly defining genders. PRO really needed to come back with sources just as objective that refuted CON's authorities confirming many shades of gender. Instead, PRO offers mere opinion, without any acknowledgement or rebuttal to society's current, popular usage the notion of gender.
Legibility could stand improvement on both sides, conduct ok.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Great debate, guys.
So this is basically a discussion over semantics. Over whose interpretation of the meaning of the word ‘gender’ is more valid.
Pro essentially made a slight improvement on this subject. In our previous debate, Pro’s position is gender is NOT a social construct.
Pro wisely doesn’t define the term ‘gender’ in the description because most dictionary definitions have updated to a more leftist variation that would make the discussion impossible to have from Pro’s end. Now Pro could have used a more traditional definition, but I imagine nobody would have accepted as Con because the discussion would be impossible to argue from their end, unless they used a Kritik.
Okay, so fundamentally. Pro admits gender is a social construct, but they state that gender is binary. (Male or female.) Pro’s reasoning for this is that for gender (or social constructs) to exist, they must follow an objective framework or gender identity is meaningless. Pro acknowledges while gender and biological sex are not synonymous, they are not entirely distinct either. ‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are based on the biological sexes ‘male’ and ‘female.’ Since the other genders are not based on any biological sexes, they don’t exist.
Con shoots themself in the foot by mentioning they have the BOP, undermining what the word ‘exists’ means by claiming gender exists several times but then saying it’s a matter of perception or exists in the mind. It’s not that I object to their argument defending subjectivity, but their side is too inconsistent with this bounce and forth by arguing something is objective versus subjective.
Con contradicts themselves here.:
1. “ There is a huge misconception between sex and gender. Though I already knew this would occur, my first contention already follows up.
Gender is, I repeat, not based on biological sex. ”
2. “Cisgender is going based on your biological sex, you identify as that.”
The way me and Con would argue this subject is similar, but different at the same time. A more consistent argument would be to specify a little earlier that Cisgender is based on biological sex, but other genders don’t have to be. Where Con does a good job is listing multiple genders and sourcing them with verified dictionary definitions.
However, it would be better if Con pushed back and challenged Pro a little more on their usage of “based on” instead of strawmanning Pro in the parts of gender and biological sex being the same.
The conduct by Con got a little cocky passive-aggressive with these comments.:
1. “No, I won't ask for you to vote for me quite yet. It's only the second round, nothings completely set in stone. Don't want to be overconfident, now do we?”
2. “Cool, we have a definition. Let's put it simpler.“
But Pro’s mockery brought it back in the middle, making the misconduct even and proportional on both sides.:
1. “What? I am sorry to the people judging but I have to laugh at this.
This is an argument about Gender, and Con is considering the possibility that it doesn't exist?“
I give Pro the point for arguments. Conduct is a tie. Both sides had great sources, consistent spelling & grammar, so it’s a tie on the rest.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
There are essentially two debates being had here: (1) whether sex is binary, and (2) whether gender is based on sex. Pro needs to win both of these to win the debate. I think both sides represented their position well, though it felt like they were talking past each other for the most part. Hence, this debate was very close.
(1)
This one is essentially both sides going back and forth with sources. Con drops this and then comes back at the end with a source defining intersex as a "sex." I'll give this to Pro, because the debate initially seems to be about whether sexes can be classified as binary—Pro shows that they can, based on ability to impregnate. Essentially, "With some research, every single person born with the intersex condition can be tied back to 1 biological sex, no matter how screwed up they are." Both sides offer definitions, but I think Pro provided more in the way of arguments. Con largely sidesteps Pro's argument in the final round with a new source; hence, I'm more inclined to lean toward Pro's line of reasoning.
(2)
Pro argues that a social construct must be based upon something in reality. Con says it doesn't. At the end, I think Pro wins this by a small margin. Although Con describes gender as "how you feel", they never really explain what these feelings are—which feelings correspond to which gender? So in the end, Con's definitions are largely circular. Both sides seem to accept that gender must be "real," so I have to give this to Pro if Con is only providing circular definitions.
Funny.
I was just thinking the exact same thing.
Its interesting how 2 oromagis would outweight 3 proper votes.
False. I'm saying that just about any standard definition of gender should disprove your case utterly. Of course, you know this because you avoided that standard definition as if it had COVID. When the instigator fails to define any key term according to standard sources, the challenger has an opening to define that term and perhaps use a variation that falsifies your argument outright (a very easy task in this particular). When I debate, I try to define every key term as favorably and as narrowly as possible right up front then use those confines to restrict my opponent's possibilities. You have essentially asserted that term X has only one meaning but then you failed to use mainstream sources to document assertion (because those sources don't support your claim). You could have made your definition a condition of debate but then your debate is reduced to truism- "assuming that term X only means Y, X means Y."
"I think CON could have won this debate by using any widely accepted definition of GENDER and demonstrating PRO's lack of understanding of that term"
So your telling my opponent to basically provide a false definition of the word gender, then to back it up, just say that I don't understand"
"Your wrong, and I don't have to prove I'm right, because your just stupid"
Great advice buddy.
I see you brought up hermaphrodites in your final round. So technically you brought up animals because some animals are hermaphrodites with the exception of birds and mammals (humans are mammals). This is a debate about humans. There have been no cases of a human producing both male and female gametes, in other words able to give birth while at the same time impregnate another human. Hermaphroditism does not occur in humans. If gender isn't based off sex then how come on job applications or important paperwork they ask for your gender and for the most part it says male or female?
But agree to disagree.
Alright, thanks. I'll keep this in mind for part two, if a part two that is.
"So, in my perspective, does ir matter? Because if you want to go that route, then still, these genders are genders. We can nitpick at the fact that gender doesn't mean gender identity all you want, but, if something is apart of gender then yes. It still can be considered their own gender."
See this is where your argument dies out. You first of all point out that this is all from "your perspective". Yes people can have perspectives on issues, but their still needs to be a basis in reality on these issues. When your "perspective" crosses with reality, then it is no longer just a perspective, it is ignorance to reality. Again, facts do not care about your feelings.
Also what the hell does "if something is apart of gender" mean exactly. How can something be a part of gender. You went from claiming these were all genders (the basis of your argument for there being more than 2 genders) then you go on and say they might not be genders, but a part of genders. If they are not genders but only a part, then what are the distinctive parts of gender? Can you explain them for me?
Gender means how you identify based on your biological sex. This is fact. Any other definitions, would be completely irrational and would have to justify many immoral and illegitimate behavior and beliefs.
"In the mists of this debate, it says "human race", I wasnt commenting on animals."
It's true that I was the first one who brought up cow, an animal and the reason why is simply to compare to the human race. There are male and female cows, that's how they mate and have offspring. Same with dogs, there are male and female dogs. There aren't more than two genders for dogs. I brought up a cow as an example to prove your statements are false and what I'm saying are facts.
"Can they speak human language?" Nope and I'm pretty sure we all know they can't. That's like you saying cows can talk and me disputing that lie saying no they can't. That's how this conversation is going.
"Do we know how they feel inside?" Maybe. Perhaps. Not 100% but scientists have done studies on how animals feel inside for example how dogs as pets view us humans as their owners but this is off topic anyways so we can disregard this - unless I answered the question wrong. Did you mean do we know how they feel inside as in a male cow thinks it's a female cow? Impossible.
"They just do, I really can't explain in any further detail because I don't identify as one." - They just do? That's not how it works. Give concrete explanation + evidence + proof of how they identify as a cow therefore making them one? If you're able to. You don't have to not identify as a cow to to explain how someone identifies as one.
"As I repeat, it's how you feel inside. So, it doesn't matter if (biologically) you are human." - It does matter that you are biologically a human. So I can say I feel like I'm an airplane, that makes me an airplane 100% is what you're saying.
If someone dresses up as a cow for halloween it doesn't make them a cow, a female human can't give birth to a calf. Also the term cisgender shouldn't exist. It's just gender. That's why women get offended when they are labeled as ciswomen, it's weird. They are women so just call them women. We can have a debate about this if you want.
I was referring to: "The conduct by Con got a little cocky passive-aggressive with these comments."
Mockery, cocky, passive-aggressive, eh. But alrighty.
Pro was using mockery.
It wasn't typical mockery. I only added it because, if you say "vote for x" in mid debate, how does that make the opposing side think? I'm fine if they win, sure, I never said I will win. Usually everyone puts "vote x" at the end of their debates. But win or not, this is how he voter feels. I could be right, and still be voted against (not saying I am or not right). So in the end, if I still feel I proved something that really, can't be completely argued against then I do. But showing completely "im going to win" 'in front of my face' was the plain mockery.
Besides that, thanks.
I would hope to keep this conversation up, but I have already stated it multiple times.
Gender is how you identify, social construct, how you choose to identify. Not your biological self. And ill keep defending that.
I simply won't (but I keep anyways) repeat this.
As for your questions, ill answer that. Everything else you say would just be me repeating the following above.
"1. If there's more than 2 genders, that applies to cows right? Can there can be a cow that's a third gender? If so, does the same logic apply to dogs and cats?"
In the mists of this debate, it says "human race", I wasnt commenting on animals.
Outside of that, I don't know. Can they speak human language? Do we know how they feel inside?
"2. Please explain how a human can identify as a cow? Are humans born with hooves?"
They just do, I really can't explain in any further detail because I don't identify as one.
As I repeat, it's how you feel inside. So, it doesn't matter if (biologically) you are human.
I state in the debate, Cisgender is a gender. Not female and male. Why did I say that?
Because, it is something that is parrel with your sex.
--
I feel the only way that this is denied is if you nitpick at the "well gender is not gender identity".
You can't identify as a cow as you were born human, just like someone who is born as a female cannot identify as male and vice versa, just like someone who is born white cannot identify as black. All under the same umbrella: We are humans, we're mammals. Our gender/sex as it is the same. Our race and ethnicity. Of course your sex wouldn't be biologically a cow but two questions:
1. If there's more than 2 genders, that applies to cows right? Can there can be a cow that's a third gender? If so, does the same logic apply to dogs and cats?
2. Please explain how a human can identify as a cow? Are humans born with hooves?
gender definition: the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
key words: "do not correspond."
Gender and sex are the same and even the definition of sex coincides with gender. Notice "the male sex or female sex" (which is biological) within the definition of gender
"What I am trying to say is that no matter what gender identity you put on someone, what they identify as will always be based upon the gender binary"
So, in my perspective, does ir matter? Because if you want to go that route, then still, these genders are genders. We can nitpick at the fact that gender doesn't mean gender identity all you want, but, if something is apart of gender then yes. It still can be considered their own gender.
Consider:
Biological female identifys as they/them. What is this then? What gender is this? Is this not a gender? If not a gender, what is it?
"Also making part 2 soon."
Yeah, as said, i'm good with that. I would prefer if it would be one week though. My schedule usually can't fit a three day debate.
That said, ill be focusing more on comments from this debate. If I can't prove it in a way that makes more sense for voters, ill change it. So, expect a slight difference.
Real quick, even if it is strongly held that it isn't, I still believe:
No, sex and gender aren't the same thing and that is a misconception. If you identify as a cow, heck, sure. Would your sex be biologically a cow though? No. They aren't the same. Pro confirms themselves, it is a social construct.
Definition of social construct: "A social construct is a concept that exists not in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction."
And you cannot compare someone trying to be like well, I know i'm black but I identify as white. Because, heres the problem. Race is not a social construct. It is biological. Gender is not biological.
And I will continue to stress this fact even if voters disagree or find it weak.
Ok thanks. With this gender debate specifically, my comment wasn't personal beliefs, it's science and facts per definitions and how the anatomy is made. Pro had better arguments
I'm aware of that. I just couldn't help but add my two cents in the comments that's just how I am, I feel you can add that as your reason along with the arguments on the debate. What I said wasn't an opinion, it was facts.
I can give you voting privileges very easily, but I’ll only do it if you agree to push your personal beliefs aside while judging debates and vote only for the person who did the better job.
Well, you should vote based solely on the arguments in the debate, not just your own opinion.
If I could I would vote for Pro. There are only two genders: male and female. That's it that's all. Sex and gender are the same thing, you are either born male or female. No such thing as gender being a social construct and for someone to just "choose" who they are, that's not how it works. If someone identifies as a cow does that make them a cow? No. You are born human. It's like a black person all of a sudden identifying themselves as white.
"1. First off, yes you're correct from my perspective. It is something based on how you feel, but to an extent. Don't try to twist and turn the tables by saying "okay, I feel like a male", I see through that. It's just like saying, "I don't feel like either female or male", that is just the definition or base of your gender. That would mean your non-binary. Just my thought process.
2. Correct, my first comment explains a bit of relative information."
Ok, so because you believe that the so-called genders are Cisgendered, Non-Binary, and Trans-gender, etc.
Also you are denying the fact that man and woman is a gender.
But gender itself is based in the binary even with these.
As a transgender, you can either be a trans-man or a trans-woman. Still a binary.
As a "Cisgender" (strait) you can either be a man, or a woman. Still a binary.
Even with Non-binary, you are neither male nor female. Still lies within a binary.
What I am trying to say is that no matter what gender identity you put on someone, what they identify as will always be based upon the gender binary.
Also making part 2 soon.
I didn't get notified, my bad.
"Something interesting I have learned from you."
Alright, let's hear it.
"I don't know where you are basing your arguments off of, but I did learn something. You have a completely different perception of reality, and it doesn't align with......well reality.
From what I can tell, (correct me if I am wrong) your perception of reality is that the definition of gender is how someone identifies themselves based upon how they feel. You claim that you can't identify as a man or identify as a woman. You can only identify as "Cisgender" (strait) or any of the other gender identities like Non-Binary, and Trans-gender. This is what I am noticing you believe."
Summary: 1. I notice you believe that gender is something based on how you feel. 2. I also notice, you think you can't identify as a female or male, only Cisgender and other genders.
1. First off, yes you're correct from my perspective. It is something based on how you feel, but to an extent. Don't try to twist and turn the tables by saying "okay, I feel like a male", I see through that. It's just like saying, "I don't feel like either female or male", that is just the definition or base of your gender. That would mean your non-binary. Just my thought process.
2. Correct, my first comment explains a bit of relative information.
"Also, I am making a #2 to this debate as agreed."
I am fine with that, go ahead.
Also, I am making a #2 to this debate as agreed.
Something interesting I have learned from you.
I don't know where you are basing your arguments off of, but I did learn something. You have a completely different perception of reality, and it doesn't align with......well reality.
From what I can tell, (correct me if I am wrong) your perception of reality is that the definition of gender is how someone identifies themselves based upon how they feel. You claim that you can't identify as a man or identify as a woman. You can only identify as "Cisgender" (strait) or any of the other gender identities like Non-Binary, and Trans-gender. This is what I am noticing you believe.
Now before I say what I need to say, would you consider this perception of reality to be yours, and if not, elaborate on what is.
I forgot to mention this in the debate, but..
You said: "For someone who says putting labels on someone who doesn't identify that way is rude .."
But also say in your short description: "Come at me Lib-tards."
Thank you, I appreciate your advice on what is rude and what is not!
bump
We can finish this debate, then if we want to, after if we have more to say, then we can make another longer one.
🤓. 🤓🤓
Either one works for me, I have my response for the most part written out.
Whatever works for you.
If you would like, after this debate, I can make another, with the maximum amount of arguments and characters, so that we can go more in depth.
You can, but it will have to be obtainable for everyone.
I might run out of character due to your request(s), am I able to submit a link in the arguments via google documents?
Oh, it was a three day limit..