Trans women are not real women
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- Female muscle/fat distribution (because of hormone replacement therapy)
- Female endocrine system (because of HRT)
- Female genitalia (breasts, vulva, vagina) (because of surgery)
- Female voice (because of surgery and/or practice)
- Female appearance
- etc...
"A woman is a biological female, born with XX chromosomes, female genital, more estrogen than testosterone, a menstruation cycle, a uterus, and other traits such as wider hips for childbirth."
I could choose to claim that someone is a man if they have a certain amount of testosterone in their body and a woman if they don't. This distinction would needlessly exclude cis women who have abnormally high testosterone levels who still nonetheless have all of the other female sex characteristics. If they have all of the other female sex characteristics except they have a higher testosterone level than most women, they obviously still deserve to be called women because calling them 'men' based on that pointless technicality is meaningless. In the exact same vein, calling someone a man or a woman based on only their chromosomes is meaningless, pointless technicality.
"...gender identity is a biological phenomenon." -Joshua D. Safer, MD, FACP, Boston University Medical Center
"The popular belief that your sex arises only from your chromosomal makeup is wrong. The truth is, your biological sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change.Trying to link sex, sex chromosomes and sexual dimorphism is also useless for understanding other brain properties....the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real. It is time that we acknowledge this. Defining a person’s sex identity using decontextualized “facts” is unscientific and dehumanizing." -Simone D. Sun, Scientific American
Some studies suggest that rates of regret have declined over the years as patient selection and treatment methods have improved. In a review of 27 studies involving almost 8,000 teens and adults who had transgender surgeries, mostly in Europe, the U.S and Canada, 1% on average expressed regret. For some, regret was temporary, but a small number went on to have detransitioning or reversal surgeries, the 2021 review said.
Now 17, Chloe is one of a growing cohort called “detransitioners” — those who seek to reverse a gender transition, often after realizing they actually do identify with their biological sex. Tragically, many will struggle for the rest of their lives with the irreversible medical consequences of a decision they made as minors.
“I was going through a period where I was just really isolated at school, so I turned to the Internet,” she recalled. In her real life, Kerschner had a falling out with friends at school; online however, she found a community that welcomed her. “My dysphoria was definitely triggered by this online community. I never thought about my gender or had a problem with being a girl before going on Tumblr.” “The community was very social justice-y. There was a lot of negativity around being a cis, heterosexual, white girl, and I took those messages really, really personally.” “I started being exposed to a lot of LGBT content and activism,” she said. “I saw how trans people online got an overwhelming amount of support, and the amount of praise they were getting really spoke to me because, at the time, I didn’t really have a lot of friends of my own.”
- Sex is based on chromosomes and trans women have XY chromosomes.
- Sex is based on a gradient of sex-characteristics and trans women are incapable of being/usually aren't far enough towards the female side of the gradient to be considered biologically women.
- 'Biological sex' is a gradient between female and male sex-characteristics. If one person lands considerably closer to the 'female' side of the gradient, their biological sex is female. There is no one singular sex-characteristic that distinguishes biological sexes.
- Trans women are capable of attaining enough female sex-characteristics and losing enough male-sex characteristics that they fall as far to the 'female' side of the gradient as cis women, who are still women, do.
- Most trans women will do the above. Thereby, most trans women will land far enough to the 'female' side of the gradient to be considered women.
- Therefore, trans women are women.
- Reproductive organs - (N/A, though trans women do lose all male organs necessary for reproduction [mainly testicles] via surgery[1], thus meaning this neither brings them closer to being biological men nor women.)
- High estrogen/progesterone & low testosterone - (Feminizing hormone therapy (FHT) reduces testosterone and increases estrogen/progesterone to levels consistent with cis women[1][2].)
- Genitalia - (Trans women lose all male genitalia and gain female genitalia upon having gender-affirming surgery[1][2].)
- Breasts - (Upon beginning hormone replacement therapy (HRT), trans women will grow breasts in the exact same way cis women do[1][2]. Both men and women have mammary glands[3], so there is not a meaningful difference in that regard.)
- There is no meaningful difference in the brains of females and males[1][2][3].
- Chromosomes are barely deserving of being considered a sex-characteristic because if you took someone with XX chromosomes and gave them XY chromosomes, there would be no meaningful difference. If you can live your entire life without even knowing that you have chromosomes that differs from your biological sex, it's safe to say it is a minuscule, unimportant characteristic.
- Muscle/fat distribution - (Trans women will have female-pattern muscle/fat distribution after a few years of HRT[1][2].)
- Physical capabilities - (This is far too large of a topic to address in one bullet point, but I did an entire debate where I indisputably proved that trans women will, after a few years of HRT, lose all advantages that biological males have over females in terms of physical ability[1].
- Hair growth & baldness - (Trans women will, after a few years of HRT, have body-hair growth that is consistent in appearance, density, speed, etc... to that of cis women[1][2]. Trans women do not experience male-pattern baldness unless they started HRT after already having experienced it[3].)
- Voice - (While trans women who did not begin HRT before puberty will have thicker vocal cords than most females, trans women are able to [and most will] develop a voice that sounds indistinguishable from that of a female through practice and vocal techniques. This becomes their natural voice as it merely becomes the habitual way your body exhales air and uses your throat muscles when you want to speak. This doesn't cause the same strain on your throat that something like doing an impression of another's voice would.
- Emotions - (Any differences between the emotional intensity, volatility, or whatever else between men and women is caused either by hormones[1] or culture[2]. Culture has nothing to do with biological sex, and trans women have hormone levels identical to that of cis women.)
"Defining a person’s sex identity using decontextualized “facts” is unscientific and dehumanizing." -Simone D. Sun, Scientific American
PRO admits im round 3 that he agrees with CON that chromosomes don't always attribute gender, which dismantled his entire counter in round 2.
In round 4, PRO calls CON's case well-researched, and fails to support much of his arguments with any citations other than stories of people who detransitioned. But, arguably, to call it de-teansitioning is to agree they can transition to a different gender anyways.
However, that doesn't matter because CON decided to accept all of PRO's statements as fact and counter them anyways. So PRO got to skate by without citing sources to back up his claims.
Over all, CON had a much more researched case and got PRO to backpedal at one point.
Though, in CON's final rebuttal a lot of red herrings were used to conclude that being a woman is experiencing womanhood. And he failed to make reasonable connection between how removing a uterus as a result of cancer is equivalent to transgenderism, when there was no uterus to begin with, but since PRO backpedaled and admitted his opponent was well-researched, the debate goes to CON.
It is agonising to me, how free a win this was for Pro even to the very last Round... Yet... Pro... THREW IT OUT THE WINDOW, SPLAT ON THE GROUND LIKE THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A WOMAN IS.
This is the craziest debate on this website actually, if you look at how free a win both sides gave the other. Neither said defined what a woman is in a way that backed their theory.
Con gives examples of males faking womanhoot with surgery, training to artificially impersonate women etc. Pro just concedes and says it's just a differing opinion and that Con even made a good argument.
We have nobody explaining what a woman even is. I am still waiting for what a woman is. Con said 'female voice' but how can there be a female voice unless it'sthe voice associated with XX-chromosome human adults?
That said, Con does win the debate because Pro literally never ever explains what makes a woman real or not. Pro implies pregnancy and chromosomes are the foundation of womanhood but doesn't use a single source (nor does Con unless it's that subtle blue the website did in the worst update of its history).
All I see is absolute gibberish up and down from both debaters. Gibberish from both benefits Con, since we then can presume that trans women mimicking women... somehow makes them real if they have the traits of a woman enough... traits that are defined by what a biological female adult human has right?
Idk. Pro never clarified and Con left it murky. Since I don't have a concrete sourced or expanded definition on what a 'real woman' is, it follows that Con's mimickery argument does hold water. If I mimic something so good that I pass as the real thing then am I not the 'real' thing? If not, why not?
That question never got answered by Pro since Pro didn't explain something else:
How can a woman be a female? What about a female iguana? Is that a woman? Also, what is 'female' if Con is saying it's just the traits that transwomen mimic?
Topic is Trans women are NOT women. R1 Pro appropriately inquires of Con what their position is on gender being a social construct (or not). Con completely ignores this query, eventually claiming it is utterly irrelevant. Con claims the debate is differentiated by one or the other definitions: women via gender identity or women via biological sex. Con the asserts trans women ARE women simply because they identify as such. No citations or groundwork to establish this. Con claims psychology is a more useful metric than biological sex. This couldn't be anymore absurd, as with the entirety of Con's initial response in R1. No sources from either Pro or Con this round.
R2: Pro states common (scientific/biological) knowledge, rest is subjective commentary. Con replies Pro ignored their reply in R1, goes onto state chromosomes are irrelevant to biological classification of the sexes. Tries to parse the distinction of biological sex on levels of hormones instead of chromosomes, thereby demonstrating a lack of education on their part of human reproduction, physiology, psychology, and biology. Con typically brings into the debate the nonsensical RARE (unnatural) occurrences of intersex, hermaphrodites, etc. and cherry picks quotes from agenda driven scientists to affirm their position.
R3: Pro acknowledges rate genetic defects, then shifts into how some people claim they are animals and use animal pronouns (this is a real thing, so again, reference common knowledge). No properly linked sources and draws attention to detransitioners. Con denounces the destransitioners but admits to being aggressive in previous response(s).
I lost interest after this, because it is clear that both Pro and Con just do not know what they are talking about. Neither cite any relevant sources to back any of their spurious claims. Pro had a better attitude, as admitted by Con when he apologized for being too aggressive, yet Pro's position is far more ground in verifiable fact and rooted in common knowledge then the fantastical wishful thinking of Con.
There are two definitions presented at the start, one biological and one based on social constructs. I don't think either side really showed the biological definition to be in their favor, since Pro conceded a bunch of special cases, and Con never provided a biological definition for a woman. It's clear that some trans women have some of the criteria listed, and some don't. So I'm left with the definition of "anyone who identities as a woman," which Pro never challenged. I do think Con should have developed this definition more, but in the end, Pro conceded most of their criteria, so I can't judge based on a biological definition.
Con obviously lost this debate in the final round if we consider definitions in it, because
1) Con fails to define what is a woman throughout this entire debate. Saying "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" does not tell us what a woman is. It is the same as saying "woman is a woman". Its not even a definition, because no definition should use word it tries to define as a definition of the word it tries to define.
2) Con's refutation of Pro's definition is based upon assuming that some person is a woman, and then using that assumption as refutation to definition. First, assumptions dont refute definitions. Second, if you are unable to define a woman, then you cannot know if someone who cant have children is a woman.
3) Con fails to understand the topic.
The topic is:
All trans women =/= real women.
So any arguments of "most of them are real women" dont apply to all of them, even if those arguments were true.
4) This topic was about definitions, and Con's unclear definitions about characteristics are useless in disproving the topic because a definition of women must include all transwomen. Con's definition didnt do that.
5) Pro explained the absurdity of Con's definition where Con says that identifying as something means being something. Con retreats from such definition, and fails to give any other definition.
6) Con uses emotional arguments, such as "doesnt mean that such person should be called a man". Con seems to not understand that "not woman =/= a man".
The only reason why I am not giving Pro the win here is because Pro didnt define women and transwomen consistently from the start, and burden of proof is on Pro, not on Con. Pro seems to come up with a different definition in each round, giving up on previous definitions. Now, the definition given in the last round does win the arguments. Reproduction by giving birth does determine what a woman is. Transwomen are not capable of giving birth, therefore they lack that which real women have. Yet this definition only came up in last round. Last round is supposed to be for conclusions, not for new definitions. So I decided not to accept it and leave arguments as tie, along with everything else.
Thank you SL. I am ham.ed up. However I will make the time for this. Count me in. It is a good break
Alright. Thanks for letting me know!
I moreso meant if 2 weeks was too little, we could do 1 month. 2 weeks is my preference. I'd at least like 15K characters at very minimum. 10K just ain't enough.
If you'd like to make a forum post where the community can comment, I'd accept that.
I don't want to give up definitions so much as I do think that the entire debate is about arguing definitions? Like, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how you could give an unambiguous definition of 'woman' that does not also intrinsically make one side of the debate a truism (unless you mean 'trans woman', which I'd be fine with agreeing on a definition to that).
Whiteflame is fine with me. Lance said Slainte is busy, so we can knock Slainte off the list. You can add 1-round forfeit = autoloss if you want.
Ignoratio elenchi is inherently already a problem since proving a point irrelevant to the resolution does nothing to advance your case, so I don't see why removing it is important (and also the relevance of something can also be up for debate).
On second thought, Slainte might be a little busy with IRL at the moment.
It’s probably better to leave him out for now.
If I'm setting it up, I can write a draft description and make a forum post for it where we can hash out the rest and make changes to it, etc.
I'd like to add Whiteflame to the list of judges if he wants to participate.
If you're really fine with giving up a predetermined set of definitions then I'm fine with that, it's your choice.
So the final prompt (I'm assuming you're setting everything up) is " On Balance, Classifying Transgender Women As Women Makes Sense", right?
And did we want to eliminate ignoratio elenchis and do the forfeit one round equals auto-loss? Or did we want no added rules?
The 1 month is kind of a dealbreaker, but I can do 10k characters for 2 weeks response time if that works.
I'm down. We can discuss an exact resolution in dms if you want.
All good, homie.
As for the debate, I add 'makes more sense' because I would prefer for it to be set in stone exactly WHY we should do this. I'm okay with changing the wording to something along the lines of "It is more reasonable/useful." These are somewhat subjective metrics in terms of how you can prove when something is more reasonable or useful, sure, but I would argue that is the case with any on-balance metric.
I'd also like for it to be judges decision. Sir Lancelot, Savant, and Slainte (maybe Barney if he's up to it). I'm open to any judges so long as they're going to vote objectively.
I'm okay with knocking it down to 20k characters and 2 weeks. If it's really a deal-breaker, 1 month is fine.
I would honestly argue that the entire point of this debate is to argue definitions (specifically where, of two definitions, which is more reasonable), so unless we choose an ambiguous definition, I would struggle to see where that would apply. Do you have any examples?
Does this all sound good?
We need the ability to respond with emotions to debate comments. I wanted to "lol" your comment but realized I couldn't.
If you want to do it as a public debate or in private, either way I would like a chance to debate you on the penis mutilation surgery.
Please give me the chance to argue that you ought not to get it.
I apologize for misgendering you. I don't check profiles that often.
If we're doing 25k characters, I'll need a month to respond haha. I work full-time and my weekends are always busy.
Also, I'd like to propose rewording it to: "On Balance, Trans Women Should Be classified As Women" I'd obviously be CON.
Saying things like "more sense" are extremely subjective. Classified is subjective, too. But at least this way we can use objective metrics and such to state our cases.
If you'd like to be CON, then we can reword it by simply adding "not" between "should" and "be."
I usually like to put "IID:" for "it is decided" before debates if I make them.
Some other ground rules, if you're ok with them.
We'll use a medical dictionary and common dictionary that we both agree upon for definitions. That way we don't get into a "war of dictionary definitions."
I'd also like to ban ignoratio elenchis from usage and one forfeit equals an auto-loss.
Do you agree?
Pro is female btw... the irony of misgendering your vote on a debate like this...
Ok I see them, you used them at pretty pointless places but yes you sourced
I did (every [1][2][3] I typed, the number was a hyperlink).
Wasn't aware that some people couldn't see the hyperlinks. Thanks for clarifying. I'll link all my sources in the comments next time.
If you did i can't see them, the blue is like black to me, it was such a shit update
Is your vote implying I did not use any sources? I don't mean to be accusatory, I'm just somewhat confused.
I am interested. I'd like to give this topic the justice it deserves.
1 week argument time, 25k max characters. I'd reword the resolution to "It, on balance, makes more sense to classify trans women as women than to classify trans women as men."
I'm fine. This is a learning experience for me, after all.
Don't worry about the loss.
"A refined absurdity, is still an absurdity"
Ayn Rand
You did good work here, imho. I'd like to challenge you to this debate, if you're willing. I'd take the stance that trans women are not real women, because I believe they aren't. You game?
I know. I know. They move before us before we notice. quicker than the blink of an eye, some would say. Or as quick as.
It is a first for me, and thank you :]
Pfft-
Damnit! How could I miss that?!
You all forgot the most distinct characteristic that men have which women do not. Amazing eyelashes.
I assumed this debate would be an easy noob-snipe (didn't end up being particularly easy as I may have hoped). I crafted my arguments accordingly lazily (if that wasn't evident from the fact I rarely used half the character count and did all of my arguments in less than 24 hours).
I'd like to do this debate again to properly demonstrate my position. Ideally against a different opponent with a longer max character count and longer argument time.
On another note: I welcome Rieka to the site. Hope this debate is the first of many for them.
While they’re certainly different from other women, so is every other category of woman. All women are real women.
To win a debate like this, you need to first consider the social consciousness. Women are women is the default, so BoP rests strongly with you in the eyes of most potential judges. So your R1 tactic of giving the other side the floor, wastes your opportunity to lay the groundwork.
if doing this again, I suggest starting with a smaller piece of the puzzle; sports for example, or even that they’re not the same as biological mothers.
I can only think of two ways to win this debate. Interesting debate though.