There exists, 2 genders only, in the human race.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
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.
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.
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..