Instigator / Pro
2
1524
rating
52
debates
75.96%
won
Topic
#5271

Transwomen are not "real" women

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
2
0

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Bella3sp
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description

I saw this debate, and I'm willing to try it out.

Is there anything to really say? Let's try this out. I'm already sure of the ways people can twist things, but I decided to leave this topic more on the open side. Originally this topic was going to have "by biological standards", but that takes the fun out of it, hm? Alright, let's try this out.

Burden of Proof is shared.

Round 1
Pro
#1
I'm late to this debate, but how about I get straight to laying out my mains points.

WARNING .. 
This argument goes over the essential parts of the body for most people, that may be deemed as inappropriate. As well as slight triggering aspects of women history.

CF: 
1) Transwomen don't fit the standards of multiple
2) Transwomen act
3) Self identification 

Transwomen are not women by scientific biological knowledge (medical field)

Taking this out of the way, i'm sure we can agree on one thing. Real women have a functional uterus (including effects such as pregnancy, period cycles, etc).. Can we agree on that? Otherwise, i'd love to hear differently.

By being pregnant, some choose to have ultrasounds to identify if the unborn baby is female or male. In fact, it's quite straight forward, with technological advances, we can see many of the specific parts that doctors themselves in the medical field deem as male or female.(1)

In specific, the ultrasound can see ".. the vulva, clitoris, and labia are taken to indicate a female fetus, whereas seeing the scrotum, penis, testicles, and raphe indicate a male fetus." 

Transwomen are not women by their own standards
Now this might seem insane to some people, but quite frankly it's true. Transwomen themselves don't completely view themselves as a women. How does this work?

Here's a few examples that come to mind:
  • Some transwomen undergo surgery to change the way they look
  • Some transwomen force their natural voice
  • Some transwomen try and "act" like a women
  • Some transwomen take testosterone to block estrogen (2)
All of these are examples of acting like a women. There is a fairly large gap between being a women and taking on the responsibilities of being a women.

What are some of womens responsibilities or areas women differ?
  • Having regular period cycles (i've seen transwomen mock real women of having periods as if they understand the same effects, like regular cramps during that time period)
  • Being able to produce eggs to get fertilized 
  • Having fairly increased risks of danger (SA, rape, harassment, etc.. hence because men have, by biological standards, a stronger advantage)(3)
Self-identification and society standard
If a transwomen is self-identifying, without anything to back themselves up. 

Besides the fact that, they pretend and act like women. Just because something makes you happier inside, doesn't mean it's true.
I could believe grass doesn't exist because I want to pretend to be right about a theory, but realistically, grass does exist wether or not it makes me happy. 

The same goes for transwomen, pretending to be a dog by crawling on all fours does not make me a dog. I'm sure you've heard this part of the argument before, and it's true. Transwomen pretend, just like you could act and pretend on anything.

Counterpoint
I did some digging by myself, and i'd like to point out a few misconceptions in some peoples case, by using my words.
  1. Self identification regardless if it makes people happy, does not mean it's logical or true
  2. Regardless of social construct, biologically proves the difference hence why we have different sexes 
  3. Even if to be used as a social construct, transwoman, as well as society don't agree
Completed sources:
Con
#2

Taking this out of the way, i'm sure we can agree on one thing. Real women have a functional uterus (including effects such as pregnancy, period cycles, etc)..
By being pregnant, some choose to have ultrasounds to identify if the unborn baby is female or male. In fact, it's quite straight forward, with technological advances, we can see many of the specific parts that doctors themselves in the medical field deem as male or female.(1)
This is correct, however, let's be specific. This is sex, not gender(3). Keep in mind, this is a single study, while the second source given (which is a systematic review with some meta-analysis), WHO(4), APA(5), and many more reliable scientific sources all agree there is a difference.

Transwomen are not women by their own standards
Now this might seem insane to some people, but quite frankly it's true. Transwomen themselves don't completely view themselves as a women. How does this work?

Here's a few examples that come to mind:
  • Some transwomen undergo surgery to change the way they look
  • Some transwomen force their natural voice
....
All of these are examples of acting like a women. There is a fairly large gap between being a women and taking on the responsibilities of being a women.
*IF THIS IS AN ARGUMENT TO ONLY TRANSMEDICALISTS, THEN SKIP TO THE NEXT QUOTE THAT WAS RESPONDED TO. SINCE CON IS NOT A TRANSMEDICALIST.
  • This is interesting, since there are two or even three claims here that are implied:
    • Women should be convincing enough to what it is socially expected for woman to be (the "standard".)
      • Implied from the examples of transwomen trying to fit the culturally accepted view of what a woman is.
    • Transwomen don't actually see themselves as woman.
      • Directly said.
    • Transwomen only take the responsibilities of being a woman, not, actually being woman.
      • Directly said.
Now, remember, the first argument is the point PRO is trying to prove. Notice how the second and third point are related, but don't actually support the point that was trying to be given. Rather, they are extrapolations from the point, but don't actually support the point. So CON will not address this, and asks PRO to establish an actual link of reasoning. Otherwise, it would just be responding to something that is not even established on anything.

Self-identification and society standard
If a transwomen is self-identifying, without anything to back themselves up. 
...
Counterpoint
I did some digging by myself, and i'd like to point out a few misconceptions in some peoples case, by using my words.
  1. Self identification regardless if it makes people happy, does not mean it's logical or true
  2. Regardless of social construct, biologically proves the difference hence why we have different sexes 
  3. Even if to be used as a social construct, transwoman, as well as society don't agree
  • CON will be responding to the Counterpoint section, as it just repeats the Self-identification and society standard section.

  • True, but it is still the most logical way to determine what gender someone is.
    • It is true that a claim that makes someone happy does not make that claim true.
    • Will explain later on.
  • True, gender and sex are different concepts.
    • Gender is related or associated with sex, but they are not synonymous. Gender is a social construct, while sex is a biological term.
  • So?
    • The majority of society does not dictate how words should be used. For example, there is a time (or maybe even now) where the stereotype of how gay men act: flamboyant. This is most of what people conceive of as gay or acting gay. That stereotype is a social construct; A social perception used by a particular society to describe human behavior. Now, should being gay only be narrowed to flamboyant homosexual people? Of course not, because it being the majority of society does not determine how a word should be used. Still, however, people use the word gay to mean flamboyant or to refer to how gay people are culturally seen to behave; "Their clothes are so gay."
Here is the argument for why trans women are real woman:
  • Who is called a woman is a social construct (evident by how people call woman by how woman are expected to look and act, but not their literal biology)
  • Social constructs should hurt the least amount of people (already discussed).
  • Letting people self-identify as woman currently hurts the least amount of people.
    • Therefore, self-identification is not only the most logical way to determine gender but also the most humanitarian. Unless what is logical is hurting the most amount of people, then sure.
Sources:
Source 1:
There are many cultural and social factors involved in making a baby into a man or a woman.
Source 2:
A simple biological definition of male and female, satisfactory to all people, is elusive. In human societies, the terms female and male can have several meanings, as they refer both to a person’s biological sex and to their social roles. Most people learn to discriminate males and females from an early age, but often not based on biological traits (4). For example, behaviors such as pair-bonding, sexual activity, offspring defense and care, and mate/partner selection (5) involve complex interplay between sex steroid hormones and peptide hormones (oxytocin and arginine vasopressin); these behaviors are encouraged differently in women and men, which influences their role in the society and culture in which they live to behave as “females” or “males.”
Source 3:
“Sex” refers to the physical differences between people who are male, female, or intersex.
...
Gender, on the other hand, involves how a person identifies.
Source 4:
Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs
Source 5:
Gender is a social construct and a social identity.
...
Sex refers to biological sex assignment; use the term “sex” when the biological distinction of sex assignment (e.g., sex assigned at birth) is predominant.

Round 2
Pro
#3

I object this idea.

I'll tell you a few groups of people that do: 
  • Doctors at birth
  • Any partner you have (they'll find out your biological sex if you have not changed)
  • Any sexual activities with people in general (they know what they're looking at, if they have not changed)
  • Parents (they know you're biological sex)
Women actually have usual consistent anatomy, their bone structure, vocal cords, and biological parts. People can usually tell by at least two of those things. Not only, but dna says differently.. DNA confirms your exact sex. 

This is correct, however, let's be specific. This is sex, not gender(3). Keep in mind, this is a single study, while the second source given (which is a systematic review with some meta-analysis), WHO(4), APA(5), and many more reliable scientific sources all agree there is a difference.
I'm glad you agree, now let's discuss your counterpoint. Are we talking about sex?

This is where your argument fails, we are not talking about gender. We are talking about sex, not gender.
I understand you're trying to flip the tables, but let me explain why we are talking about gender and not sex.

SOCIETAL CONCEPT
Please define "societal concept" .. 

Multiple times throught your counter argument, you mention social concept, otherwise known as social construct.
Let's break down a societal concept, without my contenders defintion first.


But let's take a look back at the title.. "Transwomen are not real women" .. The first key word we get is, "real".
What does real mean?


  • This is interesting, since there are two or even three claims here that are implied:
    • Women should be convincing enough to what it is socially expected for woman to be (the "standard".)
      • Implied from the examples of transwomen trying to fit the culturally accepted view of what a woman is.
    • Transwomen don't actually see themselves as woman.
      • Directly said.
    • Transwomen only take the responsibilities of being a woman, not, actually being woman.
      • Directly said.
Now, remember, the first argument is the point PRO is trying to prove. Notice how the second and third point are related, but don't actually support the point that was trying to be given. Rather, they are extrapolations from the point, but don't actually support the point. So CON will not address this, and asks PRO to establish an actual link of reasoning. Otherwise, it would just be responding to something that is not even established on anything
Actually, let me clarify what it actually means.

Hence my title "Transwomen are not women by their own standards"

Transwomen put women on a generalized notion of their standards. But transwomen DON'T MEET THEIR OWN STANDARDS.
They force an idea on women, that they themselves, can not fit. If they can not fit their own standards of women, what makes you think they can fit real womens "standards"? I'm not even talking about culturally accepted, i'm talking about transwomens ideologies

When we say real, social construct is not quite a factor. My point here was saying if you're trying to make being a women a social construct, transwomen themselves can not fit it by their standards.

Can a transwomen get pregnant? No
Can a transwomen get cycled periods? No
Can a transwomen completely have the correct dna to be a women? No

Does a transwomen have to use suppressants to be physically weaker to the dna of a women? Yes
Does a transwomen, need surgery to have physical biological part lookalikes (that still don't function for certain biological things)? Yes


And I contend your idea that they weren't related. 
Let me explain.

If transwomen can't fit their own standards (1), they can not view themselves as women (2), therefore they're picking up a false belief that they are women who (which, do not own) have the same responsibilities and biological attributes that real women do (3). 

  • True, but it is still the most logical way to determine what gender someone is.
    • It is true that a claim that makes someone happy does not make that claim true. 
    • Will explain later on.
Once again, not talking about gender.
However, if you agree that "if it makes someone happy, does not mean its true", can you tell me why people become transwomen?

Is it because... it makes them happy? 

Gender is related or associated with sex, but they are not synonymous. Gender is a social construct, while sex is a biological term
Right ! Gender is not related to sex, actually. Gender is a social construct, that is formed from an ideology. 

An ideology does not mean right. 
Like i've said, even if we did use it in terms of a social construct, transwomen do not fit it by their standards.

CONS ARGUMENT - REBUTTALS
Here is the argument for why trans women are real woman:
  • Who is called a woman is a social construct (evident by how people call woman by how woman are expected to look and act, but not their literal biology)
I already responded. 

  • Social constructs should hurt the least amount of people (already discussed).
No..? 

Did we not just talk about "just because something makes someone happy does not mean its true"
And like you said yourself, social construct.

We are talking about reality, real.
Not a concept.

  • Letting people self-identify as woman currently hurts the least amount of people.
    • Therefore, self-identification is not only the most logical way to determine gender but also the most humanitarian. Unless what is logical is hurting the most amount of people, then sure.
Self-identification.. Can we hear the words, self.. identify..

Your confirming that its based off an idea, not reality.
Should I consider a living human being an animal, because it's what makes it happy and doesn't affect a lot of people?
Self-identification is not logical, if the idea is social concept, which in itself is a concept. Not logical.

Transwomen do mock women in some ways. Some mock women by pretending they understand the same responsibilities or risks, which they don't.
This is affecting some people in this sense.

Regardless, just because it doesn't affect people doesn't mean it's reality.

Overall
  • Social concept is not reality, and even by those terms, transwomen don't fit their own social concept
  • Being a women is not a social concept
  • A man can not do the same things as a women, nor hold the same higher potential risks
  • Transwomen are not real women
Con defends his postion by assuming anyone is a real women because it makes them happier and doesn't affect people. However, this statement is false because objectively reality does not consume personal ideas or thoughts, and some women do get affected.

Sources
Con
#4
I object this idea.

I'll tell you a few groups of people that do: 
  • Doctors at birth
  • Any partner you have (they'll find out your biological sex if you have not changed)
  • Any sexual activities with people in general (they know what they're looking at, if they have not changed)
  • Parents (they know you're biological sex)
Women actually have usual consistent anatomy, their bone structure, vocal cords, and biological parts. People can usually tell by at least two of those things. Not only, but dna says differently.. DNA confirms your exact sex. 
  • Few things here:
    • Notice how CON said virtually everyone. Doctors and parents would know, yes, kinda. Technically the change of being able to give birth also could possibly change overtime. And since doctors do not check is a woman is able to give birth every-time they see their patient. So they wouldn't actually know, but that is being a bit pedantic.
    • The definition PRO gave of who is a "real woman" is that they are able to give birth, just because they have are able to engage in sexual activities does not mean they are able to give birth.
      • It's kinda weird to give a solid definition of what real woman have then hide behind many attributes of what a woman is "biologically".
      • Essentially, if there is going to be a conversation CON would ask there to be a consistent definition or attribute (such as giving birth - what was originally given.) Otherwise, this conversation will go in circles; PRO gives attributes of what a "real" woman is, CON tries to argue against that idea of what people actually refer to as a woman.
    • Notice that PRO agrees people uses anatomy, vocal cords, and so on to judge if someone is a woman; how someone looks and sounds. Now, of course that is, in part, of someone's biology, but those parts can be changed through practice, medical methods, the past in general. Or they merely can be birthed with an attribute associated with the opposite sex. Like a woman being born with a deep voice. These are not inherent to woman. Meaning, virtually all people don't judge if others are woman by their actual biology, but rather, attributes associated with a sex. Which is biological.
      • Meaning, how someone calls another a woman is not biological, but rather, associations of what is biological. And if what is a woman is merely associations; it is merely social.
    • Most people don't tell if someone is a woman by their DNA, and in the scientific field, that is not what a woman is.
I'm glad you agree, now let's discuss your counterpoint. Are we talking about sex?

This is where your argument fails, we are not talking about gender. We are talking about sex, not gender.
I understand you're trying to flip the tables, but let me explain why we are talking about gender and not sex.

SOCIETAL CONCEPT
Please define "societal concept" .. 

Multiple times throught your counter argument, you mention social concept, otherwise known as social construct.
Let's break down a societal concept, without my contenders defintion first.


But let's take a look back at the title.. "Transwomen are not real women" .. The first key word we get is, "real".
What does real mean?

  • To answer PRO's first question, because women is largely a gender concept.
  • Second, what is social construct is also real. Countries are social constructs, since they are all just lines made on land to differentiate themselves from other governance. Currency is a social construct, since it exists only because humans say it exists. However, hopefully this is agreeable, all of these things are still real.
    • The definition of what is real, then, should have been specified in the description.
  • Third, then the disagreement lies within the presumption within the statement: that there is such a thing as a "real" woman.
  • Fourth, PRO has even implied that woman is a social construct (as implied from the previous rebuttal).

  • And since, as that section that was responded to is literally titled as "Transwomen are not women by scientific biological knowledge (medical field)," that is a direct refutation, and the fact that this is PRO's response shows that there is - intentional or not - a changing of the goal post at play here. PRO's argument was that transwomen are not women by the scientific field, and then there is evidence that this is not the case because the scientific community considered woman as a social phenomena; gender. So, PRO then says that they are talking about sex not gender - which is different from if the scientific field considered trans woman as woman.

Transwomen put women on a generalized notion of their standards. But transwomen DON'T MEET THEIR OWN STANDARDS.
They force an idea on women, that they themselves, can not fit. If they can not fit their own standards of women, what makes you think they can fit real womens "standards"? I'm not even talking about culturally accepted, i'm talking about transwomens ideologies

When we say real, social construct is not quite a factor. My point here was saying if you're trying to make being a women a social construct, transwomen themselves can not fit it by their standards.

Can a transwomen get pregnant? No
Can a transwomen get cycled periods? No
...

And I contend your idea that they weren't related. 
Let me explain.

If transwomen can't fit their own standards (1), they can not view themselves as women (2), therefore they're picking up a false belief that they are women who (which, do not own) have the same responsibilities and biological attributes that real women do (3). 
  • One, this is a heavy generalization that would need to be proven; the idea that most trans woman give themselves standards that they cannot achieve.
    • Trans-woman can feel comfortable with who they are concurrently, not needing to feel to fit what is heavily abstracted as how a woman should feel, look, sound like. If this is most trans-woman would then need to be established.
  • Two, feelings as if someone is not something and actually being someone are two different things.
    • For example, someone may not feel like a woman but as along as they identify as one they are still a woman.
    • This will be explored further in bullet point three.
  • Two, there are two contradictory propositions within PRO's reasoning:
    • "...they can not view themselves as women...." (premise 2)
    • "...they're picking up a false belief that they are women..." (conclusion)
      • How can these two things be true, let alone conclude to the other, in the same line of reasoning?
  • Three, these premises do not conclude to the conclusions (when ignoring the beforementioned contradiction)
    • If "real" woman can't fit their own standards, they cannot view themselves as woman, therefore they're picking up a false belief that they are woman who have the same responsibilities and biological attributes that "real" woman do.
      • The same logic (if it can even be called that) is even applicable to what PRO would call "real" woman, since woman can feel as if they are not fitting the social and cultural expectations of what a woman should act, look, or the possessions. Like being able to give birth or nursing their baby.
      • However, and CON is of course assuming, that PRO would agree that just because "real" woman do not themselves feel like they fit the standard of what a woman is they are, still, real woman. Same thing with trans woman, just because they feel like they do not fit the standard of what a woman is, they are still in fact a woman.
  • Four, there is a mistake with the reasoning; the reasoning given is incomplete.
    • The second premise seems to be a conclusion that stems from the first premise.
    • The second premise is used to support the conclusions.
    • An argument needs, at least, to premises to support a conclusion.
      • Meaning there are two incomplete arguments that is supposed to support the conclusion. Maybe if this reasoning was complete, PRO would be able to not give a more clear non-contradictory reasoning.
CON will not respond to the rest of PRO's R2 argument since it seems to have stemmed from what has already been addressed within this R2 argument.
Round 3
Pro
#5
In all honestly, I don't have time to completely make my argument.

Social Construct - Reality 
That being said, my contender has not shown any basis for the actual goal post. They have not shown how social constructs are real, in fact, by using examples, it does not prove that being a transwomen makes you a women. 

The example, currency exists only because of humans. The paper made for currency exists, that's not imagined or supposed. The lines that base and stucture out a country exist, that's not imagined or supposed. Right? All these examples prove something of objective reality. We just name these things, but theyre still of  objective reality. But a transwomen saying she's a real women, is imagined. 

Using these examples do not prove that transwomen are women. And going deeper, these examples do not prove how a social construct is of objective reality. Paper, and areas on the earth exist, but believing something in you're mind to try and benefit yourself is imagined and influenced by personal reasoning. 

That being said, extend...

Attributes 
 I feel my contender was trying to prove a point by saying some of my attributes of most women (like being usually higher pitched) don't always apply. That is true. However, other attributes still continue to follow through.

Men don't have period cycles, can't get pregnant and don't have as much X chromosomes (two). 

My contender tries to flip the tables and uses a strawman by saying, "People can't tell by those things".. 

Yet, they can. Just because everybody doesn't know your dna, doesn't mean your dna changes and you don't have your dna. This also sticks with everything, just because they can't see your periods doesn't mean the cycles don't exist, or change the factor you're a women.  

Are you a dog, because I don't know you're dna?

No, that does not change objective reality and what is true. The same reality exists with or without people around knowing your dna. 

The two main attributes I mentioned (excluding the third, as it applies), yes, some women can not get pregnant. Usually, most women can get pregnant. Regardless of  usually, NO man can get pregnant, or get period cycles.  

Extending, again. 

Position
Transwomen put up their own standards to a women. 

If they were already a women, and felt like they were a women, why do they transition? Why do transwomen transition and change themselves to be more like their "feminine standards"? 

You bring up the point feeling like a women, but if they felt like a real women, they'd have most of the attributes, responsibilities, and risks, other women have. Yet all transwomen rarely share any attributes as those, without changing themselves. 

This is rushed, I'm sorry about the gramer and spelling mistakes. After all that, I'm practically extending everything. 



Con
#6
The example, currency exists only because of humans. The paper made for currency exists, that's not imagined or supposed. The lines that base and stucture out a country exist, that's not imagined or supposed. Right? All these examples prove something of objective reality. We just name these things, but theyre still of  objective reality. But a transwomen saying she's a real women, is imagined. 
Please, then, give three examples of a social construct that is not real then. Since it seems like PRO is saying these are not social constructs. Good luck.

That being said, my contender has not shown any basis for the actual goal post.
The goal post was that:
Transwomen are not women by scientific biological knowledge (medical field)
CON has shown that the medical field does consider trans-women as woman, since:
When speaking of what is a woman, there are many reliable scientific sources that clarify that women are also a heavily cultural and societal concept(1) or directly use it to only refer to women as a cultural and societal concept.(2)
...
This is sex, not gender(3). Keep in mind, this is a single study, while the second source given (which is a systematic review with some meta-analysis), WHO(4), APA(5), and many more reliable scientific sources all agree there is a difference.
Then PRO said:
I'm glad you agree, now let's discuss your counterpoint. Are we talking about sex?

This is where your argument fails, we are not talking about gender
Originally, the claim was that the medical field does not consider trans-woman as woman. Now the goal post changed to "we are talking about sex." It cannot be more simpler. If this is not recognize, CON will assume PRO conceded that the medical community does recognize trans-woman as woman.
Attributes 
I feel my contender was trying to prove a point by saying some of my attributes of most women (like being usually higher pitched) don't always apply. That is true. However, other attributes still continue to follow through.

Men don't have period cycles, can't get pregnant and don't have as much X chromosomes (two). 

My contender tries to flip the tables and uses a strawman by saying, "People can't tell by those things".. 

Yet, they can. Just because everybody doesn't know your dna, doesn't mean your dna changes and you don't have your dna. This also sticks with everything, just because they can't see your periods doesn't mean the cycles don't exist, or change the factor you're a women.  
Again, PRO contradicts themselves. They say CON "strawmans" them by saying that "People can't tell by those things..." This is not a direct quote, so CON will assume they mean this quote:

Meaning, virtually all people don't judge if others are woman by their actual biology, but rather, attributes associated with a sex.
Then they say:

...Just because everybody doesn't know your dna...
So, somehow CON is strawmaning when they say people don't judge if another is a woman by their actual biology, then PRO says that everybody doesn't know someone's actual biology. Or DNA, as they put it. Keep in mind, the original claim that is being disputed is:
Colloquially, people call other people woman not by having a functional uterus - rather, by their looks. Since virtually everyone does not check if the person in front of them is concurrently able to give birth. Hopefully, this is self-evident.
  • One: it is not a strawman, PRO directly said that they agree that everybody do not actually know someone's biology.
  • Two: CON is just correct on the point, as PRO agreed. 
Transwomen put up their own standards to a women. 

If they were already a women, and felt like they were a women, why do they transition? Why do transwomen transition and change themselves to be more like their "feminine standards"? 

You bring up the point feeling like a women, but if they felt like a real women, they'd have most of the attributes, responsibilities, and risks, other women have. Yet all transwomen rarely share any attributes as those, without changing themselves. 
"Real women put up their own standards to [being] women. 

If they were already a women, and felt like they were a women, why do they [conform]? Why do real women transition and change themselves to be more like their 'feminine standards'?"

Notice how this exact logic can be applied to real woman. Real woman - either because they act, look, or are born in a way where it is not "womanly" do not consider themselves par to these feminine standards. Which can be applicable to most woman. Now, this logic can be furthered mirror by saying:

"You bring up the point feeling like a women, but if they felt like a real women, they'd have most of the attributes, responsibilities, and risks, other women have. Yet [this subset of] real woman rarely share any attributes as those, without changing themselves."

The only difference here, other than changing "transwoman" with "real woman", is that instead of saying all real woman the quote talks about a specific section of woman. Now, if there was a real need to make this more analogous, "real woman" can be easily replaced with "unwomaned real woman", which makes the use of "this subset of" retain as "all", as how CON originally said it.

And the question is, are all this subset of woman not "real woman" - even though they have the genitalia, chromosomes, and so on coincides. To say that this logic means transwoman are not woman would necessarily also apply to what PRO would consider "real" woman. In fact, if we ignore the last paragraph of what PRO said, this logic is perfectly applicable to most "real" woman.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Wooo, 7 minutes to write this..

Three examples of social consturcts not real:
- Transwomen believing their "real women" 
- Therians (in some cases) believing their "real animals" 
- Objectivly, relgion

... 

Objective reality does not agree with transwomen, which definies real or not.
Sex is objectivity reality, so no, I did not change it to anything.

Part of the medical field is understanding objective reality, and one is sex.

...

I do admit that not everyone sees the records of someones biological dna, or biological attributes..
But does this change their biological atteibutes though people don't know?
No, it doesn't. The objective reality of whats real or not continues to stay.

Meaning, even if people "assumed" someone was male, when they are a female, the objective reality does not change.
You're goal post has changed off topic trying to sway the difference between objective reality and opinions/assumptions.

..

With my last few minutes, con askes why transwomen need to live up to "feminine standards".. 

Well, con, I'm asking the same thing. Why are they labbeling and subjecting themselves to a standard they make up that they can't fit.
Unfortunately, even when you change yourself to meet those "feminine standards", whats real or not doesn't change.

My point with that argument is not only do they not meet objective reality, but their own standards of a women.
Social construct, and objective reality both prove them as not real women.



Con
#8
Rebuttals:
Three examples of social consturcts not real:
- Transwomen believing their "real women" 
...
- Objectivly, relgion
"The example, [transwomen believing their 'real women'] exists only because of humans. The [mind] making [making trans-women believe they're 'real women'] exists, that's not imagined or supposed. The [texts and books that] stucture out a [religion] exist, that's not imagined or supposed. Right? All these examples prove something of objective reality. We just name these things, but theyre still of  objective reality."
If this looks familiar, it's because of this is directly analogous to PRO's rebuttal to the social contructs CON made:

The example, currency exists only because of humans. The paper made for currency exists, that's not imagined or supposed. The lines that base and stucture out a country exist, that's not imagined or supposed. Right? All these examples prove something of objective reality. We just name these things, but theyre still of  objective reality. But a transwomen saying she's a real women, is imagined. 
The exact same reasoning can be given to what PRO has given as actual social constructs. The problem PRO is facing is that they do not recognize that all social constructs come from objective parts of the universe. Just because something is comes from a fact does not mean it is not a social construct. This becomes obvious as PRO's exact reasoning when applied to what they consider actual social constructs CON can also be hand waved with the exact same reasoning. Which means the reasons for why currency and countries are real things but not social contructs that PRO gave were not actual rebuttals. CON did not mention "therians" since CON has never even encountered the word before.

Objective reality does not agree with transwomen, which definies real or not.
Sex is objectivity reality, so no, I did not change it to anything.

Part of the medical field is understanding objective reality, and one is sex.
  • Unsubstantiated, and the previous rebuttal stands as a reason why this is wrong and will give a final argument at the end of why trans women are women in this R4 argument.
  • Wow, really did not understand the point. CON will quote themselves:
Originally, the claim was that the medical field does not consider trans-woman as woman. Now the goal post changed to "we are talking about sex."
  • Notice that CON did substantiate that the medical community does consider that trans women are women:
...
This is sex, not gender(3). Keep in mind, this is a single study, while the second source given (which is a systematic review with some meta-analysis), WHO(4), APA(5), and many more reliable scientific sources all agree there is a difference.

I do admit that not everyone sees the records of someones biological dna, or biological attributes..
But does this change their biological atteibutes though people don't know?
No, it doesn't. The objective reality of whats real or not continues to stay.

Meaning, even if people "assumed" someone was male, when they are a female, the objective reality does not change.
You're goal post has changed off topic trying to sway the difference between objective reality and opinions/assumptions.
So let's dissect this:

I do admit that not everyone sees the records of someones biological dna, or biological attributes..
So CON was right that:
Colloquially, people call other people woman not by having a functional uterus - rather, by their looks. Since virtually everyone does not check if the person in front of them is concurrently able to give birth.
Funny how you kept fight this point.
But does this change their biological atteibutes though people don't know? No, it doesn't. The objective reality of whats real or not continues to stay.

Meaning, even if people "assumed" someone was male, when they are a female, the objective reality does not change.
It's too bad that the debate ends on this note, but for the reader, CON will challenge someone to find any point where it is claimed the biology of a person changes just because people don't know. There isn't any. Furthermore, it's funny that PRO would try to comment on objective reality when they cannot seem to know what the relationship between objective reality and social constructs is in the first place.
You're goal post has changed off topic trying to sway the difference between objective reality and opinions/assumptions.No, it doesn't. The objective reality of whats real or not continues to stay.
Notice that the arguments that PRO first gave was responded to:
PRO's argument
Transwomen are not women by scientific biological knowledge (medical field)
CON's rebuttal:
...
This is sex, not gender(3). Keep in mind, this is a single study, while the second source given (which is a systematic review with some meta-analysis), WHO(4), APA(5), and many more reliable scientific sources all agree there is a difference.
Keep in mind, the first bullet point was tangential but not the focus, and, was entirely on PRO for continuing to refute that point specifically:

I object this idea.

I'll tell you a few groups of people that do: 
  • Doctors at birth
  • Any partner you have (they'll find out your biological sex if you have not changed)
...
Which later turned out that CON was right even by PRO's admission. The tangential point was a small and unfocused part of the debate which PRO continued to rebuttal it. CON, however, focused most of their rebuttal on if the medical community did consider trans women women. Which then PRO moved the goal post to "we're talking about sex not gender."
With my last few minutes, con askes why transwomen need to live up to "feminine standards".. 

Well, con, I'm asking the same thing. Why are they labbeling and subjecting themselves to a standard they make up that they can't fit.
Unfortunately, even when you change yourself to meet those "feminine standards", whats real or not doesn't change.

My point with that argument is not only do they not meet objective reality, but their own standards of a women.
Social construct, and objective reality both prove them as not real women.
Ok, missing the entire point. CON will just quote themselves:

Notice how this exact logic can be applied to real woman. Real woman - either because they act, look, or are born in a way where it is not "womanly" do not consider themselves par to these feminine standards. Which can be applicable to most woman.
...
And the question is, are all this subset of woman not "real woman" - even though they have the genitalia, chromosomes, and so on coincides. To say that this logic means transwoman are not woman would necessarily also apply to what PRO would consider "real" woman. In fact, if we ignore the last paragraph of what PRO said, this logic is perfectly applicable to most "real" woman.
The rebbuttal was that the logic applied to transwomen necessarily is also applied to "real" women. Now, read this quote again, but interpret what PRO is saying is about "real" women:
Why are they labbeling and subjecting themselves to a standard they make up that they can't fit.
Unfortunately, even when you change yourself to meet those "feminine standards", whats real or not doesn't change.

My point with that argument is not only do they not meet objective reality, but their own standards of a women.
Social construct, and objective reality both prove them as not real women.
Now, and to reiterate, PRO has no idea what makes a social construct a social construct and that they are real. This reasoning continues to exclude most "real" women who feel like they cannot achieve standards of feminity. If there was a rebuttal, either PRO can give a reason why the exact same logic is not applicable to "real" women (meaning "real" women are not women) or why it does matter why their own standard determine if they are women. Which, by the way, a real rebuttal would have done two of these things.

Trans argument:

PROP. 1. --- Every supposedly female person who can be possibly be mistaken for a male is being virtually always identified as male or female depending if they conform to what a female is expected to look and act. (Hopefully self-evident)

PROP.2. --- Every woman is a supposedly female person who can be possibly be mistaken for a male. (Hopefully self-evident)

Every woman is a supposedly female person who can be possibly be mistaken for a male. Every supposedly female person can be possibly be mistaken for a male is virtually always identified as male or female depending if they conform to what a female is expected to look and act.
  • PROP. 3. --- Therefore, every woman is a being virtually always identified as male or female depending if they conform to what a female is expected to look and act.
PROP. 4. --- Every being virtually always identified as male or female depending if they conform to what a female is expected to look and act is a collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex. (Hopefully self-evident)

Every woman is being virtually always identified as male or female depending if they conform to what a female is expected to look and act. Every being virtually always identified as male or female depending if they conform to what a female is expected to look and act is collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex.
  • PROP. 5. --- Therefore, every woman is collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex.
PROP. 6. --- Every collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex should be a collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex that maximizes well-being. (Hopefully self-evident)

PROP. 7. --- Every prevention of suicides, self-harm, and increase of happiness includes a person who identify as a women. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)

Every collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex that maximizes well-being is a prevention of suicides, self-harm, and increase of happiness. Every prevention of suicides, self-harm, and increase of happiness includes a person who identify as a woman.
  • PROP.8. --- Therefore, every a collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex that maximizes well-being includes a person who identify as a woman.
Every collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex should be a collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex that maximizes well-being. Every collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex that maximizes well-being includes a person who identify as a woman.
  • PROP.9. --- Therefore, every collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex should include a person who identify as a woman.
Every woman is collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex. Every collection of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with the female biological sex should include a person who identify as a woman.
  • PROP. 10. --- Therefore, every woman is a person who identify as a woman.
PROP.11. --- Every trans woman is a person who identify as a woman. (Self-evident)

Every trans woman is a person who identify as a woman. Every person who identify as a woman is a women.
  • PROP. 12. --- Therefore, every trans woman is a woman.
Sources:
Doyle, D. M., Lewis, T. O. G., & Barreto, M. (2023). A systematic review of psychosocial functioning changes after gender-affirming hormone therapy among transgender people. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(8), 1320–1331. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01605-w
... family acceptance of TGNC adolescents and adults is associated with decreased rates of negative out-comes, such as depression, suicide, and HIV risk behaviors and infection

Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming people. (2015). American Psychologist, 70(9), 832–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039906
In addition, TGNC people who receive social support about their gender identity and gender expression have improved outcomes and quality of life.

Lin, Y., Xie, H., Huang, Z., Zhang, Q., Wilson, A., Hou, J., Zhao, X., Wang, Y., Pan, B., Liu, Y., Han, M., & Chen, R. (2021). The mental health of transgender and gender non-conforming people in China: a systematic review. The Lancet Public Health, 6(12), e954–e969. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(21)00236-x
Transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC) individuals are at a high risk of adverse mental health outcomes due to minority stress—the stress faced by individuals categorised as stigmatised social minority groups

Tebbe, E. A., & Budge, S. L. (2022). Factors that drive mental health disparities and promote well-being in transgender and nonbinary people. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(12), 694–707. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00109-0
Stigma-based stressors are associated directly and indirectly with mental health disparities in depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), self-harm, suicidality, disordered eating and substance use in TNB individuals.

The What We Know Project. (2021, August 11). What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being? | What We Know. What We Know. https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

Transgender individuals ... who encounter unsupportive social environments, are more likely than the general population to experience health challenges such as depression, anxiety, suicidality and minority stress.
Conclusion:
PRO has shown little understanding of these topics. They have also shown that they have not fully thought on their position, signified by backing off-points. Vote CON.