Instigator / Pro
7
1500
rating
10
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#5303

Transgenderism is Not Valid

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Tickbeat
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1319
rating
260
debates
41.35%
won
Description

We are all born as either a male or a female. Males have XY chromosomes, and females have XX chromosomes. And with them comes a plethora of biological differences between the male and the female body. These exist as a mechanism for reproduction and therefore the continuation of the human race moving away from extinction. And yet, even though almost everything about you is biologically coded towards your gender, people will still try to change that. If they are born a male, but they want to be a female, because they feel as if they are one, then they might decide that they are now a female. And to accommodate this, they will do all sorts of things to their body to make it look like a woman's, and slowly, over time, permanently and irreversibly change their body, all for the purpose of pursuing to become a gender that they were not. The question is, is this change for the better, or for the worse? That is, is this really something you should be doing, and should you really be validated for this? Should someone really be considered an actual female just because they identify as one? That is the topic we will be debating here.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Before I begin, I first must define the words:

Transgenderism: the act of genetically modifying one's body in some sort of way with the intention of becoming the gender that they were not biologically assigned at birth.

Valid: something that is acceptable, logical, and shows itself to be unobjectionable.


What is a woman? People sometimes ask this question, and each of them expect to get a certain answer from the person. What they might be expecting is for someone to come up with a falsifiable explanation for what a woman is. For example, a person (in the context of humans specifically) capable of becoming pregnant and giving birth. Their next rebuttal will of course be to point out that some women have medical conditions like PCOS, where they are not biologically capable of becoming pregnant, though they will sometimes be able to through the help of pharmaceuticals. Or, if you were to ask a little kid, they're probably say something along the lines of a girly person, who has long hair, wears dresses, puts on makeup, and likes the color pink. Of course, those are merely the social aspects of gender, as a man can just as easily have long hair, a man can wear a dress, a man can put on makeup, and a man can like the color pink, but that still makes him a man. However weird that guy may look depending on how you approach the fundamental meanings of those words, he can still do that and still be a man. But what some people will conveniently leave out is what a woman really, fundamentally is: a person with XX chromosomes. And as for men, a man fundamentally is: a person with XY chromosomes. It's that simple. Chromosomes are simply the initial sign of what gender your kid is going to be. When a human is nothing more than a fetus physically, the chromosomes act as the genetic coding for how the body is going to build this baby into either a boy, or a girl. The presence of a Y chromosome, along with it being paired up with an X chromosome, means that it will be a male. But the absence of the Y chromosome, and therefore just the X chromosome, means that it will be a female. It is important to word it like this, because some people think that XXY, XYY, or other weird combinations, are the genetic coding for other genders. However, these still will create either a man, or a woman. XXY creates a man, because there is a Y chromosome coupled with an X chromosome, even though there are two X chromosomes in this case, and XYY will also create a man for the same reason. So, if there were a combination like XXX, that would be a woman, as there is no Y chromosome to be coupled with the X chromosomes. It is these chromosomes that define exactly what a woman is at the most fundamental level.

Sometimes, people believe that they are a different gender than what they were "assigned at birth." This is fundamentally incorrect, because you literally are a specific gender. What someone might be referring to is their appeal to things that are socially considered to be apart of a different gender. Girly things are things like pretty dresses, pretty makeup, the color pink, sparkly things, and long hair. And manly things are things like trucks, sports, the color blue, and grills. And yes that was obviously a generalization, but my point here is that there are aspects of the world that society has arbitrarily assigned to specific genders. Back in the day, pink used to be a rather manly color, but now it's generally considered girly. And so, usually, men do not want to wear dresses. I myself would not be caught dead wearing a pink sparkly dress with makeup. But if there is a man that actually does want to wear a pink sparkly dress with makeup, but has been repeatedly told their whole lives what is feminine and what is masculine, they might start believing that the reason they like pink sparkly dresses is because they are neurologically a girl, and are somehow in the wrong body.

Your gender has nothing to do with what kinds of things you like. The only reason that a boy might feel uncomfortable or embarrassed to wear a pink sparkly dress and makeup is because social conventions have been drilled into their heads since birth, and there are some things that are socially considered feminine and masculine. This isn't really a bad thing, however, it is important to know that just because someone might want to dress as what happens to be socially considered to be how the other gender dresses doesn't mean you must be the other gender entirely. It's like believing that wanting to wear big clothes means that you are in the wrong body because you are not the right height that you have been assigned at birth. Believe it or not, height dysphoria, just like gender dysphoria, is a real thing.

The concept of gender dysphoria is, again, simply due to social aspects of gender. Some people report thinking and feeling as though they are a different gender, as if their brain is fundamentally hardwired like the brain of the other gender. However, again, this has nothing to do with your actual gender, and it has everything to do with how social protocol has created the way some genders might think, and the way kids are raised because of that can pass on the tradition. Which, again, is not a bad thing, it's just that it fundamentally doesn't actually have anything to do with your physical gender, they are just generally arbitrary things that have been defined over the course centuries, and quite possibly since the dawn of time.

Now, I do need to clarify that these social protocols aren't technically completely arbitrary. Men and women have their own specific molecule that their body produces, called testosterone and estrogen respectively. And these can change people's behaviors. These can create certain social aspects of gender based on that. But it remains that thinking in a certain way does not mean you are a new gender. Just look at your anatomy for proof.

And, while we're on the topic of height dysphoria, height dysphoria appears to have the exact same characteristics as gender dysphoria, with the one difference being that there are no arbitrary social protocols that have been developed for centuries that dictate how a person dresses and behaves based on their height. And yet, people can still feel as though they are the wrong height that they were assigned at birth. And yet, people don't validate those kinds of people for this. Why? Because you cannot change what you objectively are. As I explained in the beginning, your gender is fundamentally coded into your genetics, which give you a specific type of reproductive organ, a main production of either testosterone or estrogen, and so on. So, your gender is also what you objectively are. Your height, like your gender, is what you physically and objectively are as a person.

This brings us on to the people who feel the need to change their entire physical body in order to become the other gender. They will get implants, take different hormones, and have all kinds of other surgeries just to permanently change their body. If you decide you don't want to do this anymore, too bad. You have basically destroyed your body now, and if you want to go back, your body is never going to be the same again, depending on how far along you are. It's like getting a tattoo, except it's the entire build and chemical work of your body, which is not good for you.

And that brings me on to what is a woman. Because some people answer with, "a person who has [anatomical structure]." But then they might start arguing that a person can get surgeries to change, or straight up remove, their [anatomical structure]. This is why I mentioned the chromosomes, not only because it can fundamentally define a gender, but that is something that, no matter how hard you try, you cannot change. No amount of surgeries, hormone replacements, and puberty blockers can change your chromosomes, and those can define a gender.



In conclusion: a person is fundamentally either a man or a woman biologically, and this is something objective about you. Gender is not a social construct, it is a fundamental biological mechanism. There are social constructs that people invented to go along with genders, but those have nothing to do with real gender. You are objectively a specific gender, and trying to change it will not only not change your gender, because you will still always have the same chromosomes, but does permanent changes to your body, and are very bad for your body. Therefore, the conclusion is that transgenderism is not valid.
Con
#2
"Gender dysphoria
Gender dysphoria is a term used to describe a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity. Treatment for gender dysphoria aims to help people live the way they want to, in their preferred gender identity or as non-binary.
Gender dysphoria or gender identity services are specialised services that are directly commissioned by NHS England. There are three components of the gender dysphoria pathway, each of which works to a separate service specification:
  • a therapeutic service for children and young people up to 18 years of age, and their families; including a linked paediatric endocrinology service for hormone therapy;
  • Gender Dysphoria Clinics from 17-years of age, offering assessment, diagnosis, overall care coordination, hormone treatments, voice and communication therapies and talking therapies; and
  • certain surgical interventions of the chest and genitals for adults"
Round 2
Pro
#3
Okay? I'm not sure what your point is. All you did was mention some services that help people live out their gender dysphoria and become the gender they want to be. Therefore, I don't have anything to add to this discussion, as he has not challenged anything I have said, and therefore I have nothing to say in response.
Con
#4
"Helping trans individuals cope with harassment and rejection, particularly by drawing on social support, may promote better mental health, which could help reduce suicidality in this population."

Round 3
Pro
#5
The article you sited was about the effects of discriminatory behaviors towards trans people. This is a debate, so right now, I'm not trying to perform therapy. I'm solely here to state the facts, which don't care about your feelings, as Ben Shapiro famously said. Facts are facts, and feelings can't change facts (unless the fact is how you're feeling, but you know what I mean). Helping people work through their gender dysphoria instead of letting them destroy their bodies is a better way to go about it. The article you sited was just about the writers' observations and results of various tests on transgender people on the effects of discriminatory behaviors towards trans people. It has nothing to do with whether or not transgenderism is valid or not, and you're not even making any attempt to make your own arguments, you've mainly used a website to fight your battles for you, but clearly, they don't even do that.
Con
#6
"The core value underlying all transphobia is a rejection of trans identity and a refusal to acknowledge that it could possibly be real or valid.
Transphobia has no single, simple manifestation. It is complex and can include a range of behaviours and arguments. The consequence of transphobia is that trans people struggle to live openly and comfortably in society. An ultimate outcome may be the erasure of trans people as a viable class of people."

Round 4
Pro
#7
Saying that someone saying that you are objectively a specific biological gender is transphobia is like saying that someone saying that you are objectively a specific physical height is transheightphobia, which is of course ridiculous. You can't just decide and pretend to be something you are not. Your gender is an objective fact, and as I said previously, facts don't care about your feelings. Your gender is clear, and is biologically coded into you. There's nothing you can do to truly and fundamentally change that. And again, try fighting your own battles instead of running to your little website and saying nothing on your own. And again, you're still not challenging any of the statements I have made about how you are objectively a certain gender. You haven't provided any reasons to factually believe that it is valid for someone to do this, all you've said, or should I say, the website has said, on this matter is just how these kinds of things can affect trans people. And, yeah, there are good and bad ways to approach this, amongst many people who collectively believe in the things I have stated thus far. But again, this is a debate, and I'm here for the facts, not the feelings.



In conclusion: all you've been doing thus far is quoting a website on an irrelevant part of this topic, not the actual underlying validity of transgenderism as a factual statement.
Con
#8
Extend all arguments.
Round 5
Pro
#9
You have not thus far provided any rebuttal to the underlying validity and reasoning behind transgenderism. My reasoning for saying that transgenderism is invalid is that you are objectively either a man or a woman, and those aren't social constructs. These are fundamental, objective, and real things about you, and you can't just walk up to a genie and wish to be magically transformed into the other gender.

Your reasoning for saying that transgenderism is valid is that transgender people have a hard time coming out, and have dealt with discriminatory behavior against them, which in serious cases, can lead to suicide. I mean, if people are dying, yeah that is something that needs to be dealt with. But if somebody was on the verge of killing themself because they wanted to be a giant pink elephant floating 100 feet in the sky, but nobody accepted them for that, you could try working through it with them, and while I am purely here for the facts, suicidal behaviors is a serious issue and should be dealt with compassionately. But if a person wants to be a giant pink elephant floating 100 feet in the sky, you can't just say that they're valid because they experience discrimination and people don't accept them for who they are. Clearly, you are not a giant pink elephant floating 100 feet in the sky, and you can't just identify as one and then suddenly be one. This is why your arguments don't qualify as a rebuttal to my arguments, and considering this is round 5, this is your last chance to actually create a rebuttal against my statements, rather than pointing out that transgender people experience discrimination.
Con
#10
My opponent didnt use sources, so source point to me.