Instigator / Con
0
1382
rating
460
debates
46.41%
won
Topic
#5953
You pick the topic.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1233
rating
417
debates
39.81%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Send a message for questions on the topic.
Please do not accept if you foresee yourself not having time to participate.
Round 1
Con
#1
I extend an invitation to the apparent opposing side to watch or listen to the video(s) on transgenderism at the YouTube channel address: https://youtube.com/@j.talkstothepeopleradio6008
There, you may listen and even bring forth questions regarding what was said and add it to this topic of discussion.
On transgenders , I'll say that in relation to the video, I encourage de-conversion therapy. I support in all cases for those looking to gender transition or even somewhere in the process, to receive therapy and analytical evaluation in attempt to reverse the process.
Now this therapy is rigorous and extensive likened to a militant intensity or police interrogative length.
You notice or will learn in these situations, the process is setup to chip away at the exterior to break down the barrier, shell, protective or defensive out layer at the persona in order to expose the underlying, ulterior presence
If the therapy is successful at breaking down the psyche and mentality, the person will be revealed at changing a decision to transition.
I understand there are folks that have gone through this to talk about their results. Unfortunately, everyone as far as I'm aware does not participate with getting help.
All people looking to transition are to be prescribed treatment and de-conversion therapy first.
Another facet related to this is the sexuality.
The question is, is a cis person actually homosexual engaging in a sexual relationship with a respective trans person?
What is a trans person?
A person that is not a complete natural gender. Really, truly what it comes down to.
There is an interview on YouTube titled along the lines, what does it feel or how it feels to have sex with a transgender.
The transgender female interviewing the cis male admitted that there is much internally that still belongs to the natural assigned sex.
For instance, the prostate. The "squirting" or fluid that is released during sexual activity is actually the prostate fluid. The cis male is indeed experiencing same sex physiological functioning during sexual activity.
You can say , looking at it that way, it's homosexuality. But you'll have others, perhaps the opposing side , that will define sexuality based on just identity alone as opposed to physical make-up.
Aside from that, on the other hand, the apparent opposing side may convey that it's just based on exterior physical make-up.
But you're either heterosexual or homosexual. That is why many people consider bisexual folks homosexual. Once you cross paths or touch anything or contact anything sexually of the same sex explicitly, that puts you into the "homo" class even if you desire or are attracted heterosexually.
Now gay people or homosexual folks themselves. I've heard of people that were once homosexual but rescind. Does this prove that homosexuality once and for all is not natural?
The diagnosis of it being a disorder decades back was not an error. But it has been modified to the state of being a condition no longer necessary or looked at by science and medicine to treat or deemed impossible to revert.
I asked the apparent opposing side these questions.
Should the U.S. president push policies for transgender rights?
Why isn't homosexuality and the lifestyle pushed and showcase particularly in advertisements in this day and time?
We or at least I have seen many so called interracial images portrayed at the "norm" although not really prevalent.
What is society holding back from?
Could it be that it is a deep rooted position that this can't be pushed as it truly is not a foundation of society for thriving the family unit?
Could it be because as a core center point to sustain society, the LGBT, is not suitable?
We understand or can understand that folks have rights, right to marry, right to vote, right to evaluate their qualifications to adopt children, then assume legal guardianship/custody, right to equal opportunity and patronage.
The government grants all that. These people are just not quite the pillars of society and with that, it leaves the space always there to isolate a niche or group having them to stand out still as estranged from typical sexual relationships, man and woman at least.
I yield it over.
Pro
#2
I will first raise my points, and then I will respond to your points.
My first point regarding trans. Boy should be allowed to wear skirt if he wants, no matter how old he is. Clothes dont even have gender, so it makes no sense to assign them one. You are not even born with clothes. The decision to assign gender to clothes is completely arbitrary and not even natural. So boy can wear anything he wants. Maybe he doesnt even want to be trans, but just wants to wear skirt and have long hair. So why prevent him?
My first point regarding gays is that there are degrees of gay relationships. Two boys can hold hands, cuddle, hug, kiss lips or kiss neck, kiss hands or kiss tummy, hold close to each other, pet on the head. Now, which one of these is exactly wrong? If you agree that person(man) has a right to not marry and not be with a woman, then why cant such a person be in these forms of relationships? Like, whats the difference regarding the birth rates anyway? But if you think person(man) has no right to not be with a woman, then you are essentially justifying rape here.
Now, to meet your points.
I extend an invitation to the apparent opposing side to watch or listen to the video(s) on transgenderism at the YouTube channel address:
I already have. Your main point in video was de-conversion therapy.
But what do you mean? Would it be forced therapy? Would you force any man who wears skirts to such a therapy? I am not really for such therapy even if not forced, but if it is forced, then I am even more against it. Its against person's wishes, and person's wishes matter the most to the person.
For instance, the prostate. The "squirting" or fluid that is released during sexual activity is actually the prostate fluid. The cis male is indeed experiencing same sex physiological functioning during sexual activity.
I agree that trans person is usually a mix of genders, depending on how you define gender. Trans person would maybe want to be a certain way, but cannot achieve it right now. So there is a mix of wanting to be something and the presence of unwanted or less wanted type of body.
You can say , looking at it that way, it's homosexuality. But you'll have others, perhaps the opposing side , that will define sexuality based on just identity alone as opposed to physical make-up.
I wouldnt agree that its homosexuality, because some trans girls look like girls, so what man is attracted to is very much a girl's appearance and a mind that wants to be a girl. So not great difference from non-trans girls.
But you're either heterosexual or homosexual.
There is a huge variety of attractions. Its not just heterosexual or homosexual. For example, heterosexual isnt attracted to every person of opposite gender. And especially not equally attracted to every person of opposite gender, otherwise every heterosexual would be a pedophile.
Now gay people or homosexual folks themselves. I've heard of people that were once homosexual but rescind. Does this prove that homosexuality once and for all is not natural?
Well, natural means reproducing and surviving. Those two are considered natural. But it is also natural and found in nature that some males do not reproduce because other males have taken all the females for themselves.
The diagnosis of it being a disorder decades back was not an error. But it has been modified to the state of being a condition no longer necessary or looked at by science and medicine to treat or deemed impossible to revert.
Disorder and order very much are just constructs of the mind. People today think pedophilia is a disorder even tho for thousands of years it was considered necessary for high birth rates and was considered part of natural order and a perfect order for human society. So if your argument is about birth rates, then logic will lead you to conclusion that the sooner woman starts giving birth, the more children she can give birth to. Women usually get ability to get pregnant around age 10 to 13. Is thus that the perfect age for marriage, to improve birth rates?
Should the U.S. president push policies for transgender rights?
I would say very much so. Trans people are often bullied in schools and online. They need to have rights so they can feel safe and their wishes respected.
Why isn't homosexuality and the lifestyle pushed and showcase particularly in advertisements in this day and time?
Well, most shows are about straight people. Its kind of a heterosexual oppression of LGBT. The non-heterosexuals and supporters of LGBT do take a significant part of society, but arent well presented in media.
Could it be that it is a deep rooted position that this can't be pushed as it truly is not a foundation of society for thriving the family unit?
Well, gay people can reproduce. They still have all the parts which can be used for reproduction with woman. No reason they cant be gay while also reproducing with women. Plus, they dont take that much of a population to significantly reduce birth rates even if they couldnt reproduce.
We understand or can understand that folks have rights, right to marry, right to vote, right to evaluate their qualifications to adopt children, then assume legal guardianship/custody, right to equal opportunity and patronage.
Well, gay people simply should have equal rights to achieve their wishes in our society. Imagine if it was other way around. If you were straight man, but homosexuals were majority and only homosexuals could reproduce. Would you prefer to be forced to have sex with men?
The government grants all that. These people are just not quite the pillars of society and with that, it leaves the space always there to isolate a niche or group having them to stand out still as estranged from typical sexual relationships, man and woman at least.
I dont think we are supposed to make them feel isolated or less worthy. It doesnt help us or them if we all are divided. It is better to be united as one group where every individual has place to realize at least some of his wishes.
Round 2
Con
#3
"Maybe he doesnt even want to be trans, but just wants to wear skirt and have long hair. So why prevent him?"
I guess you call this liberalism. Folks believe that there are orders to things. Everything is in a certain order.
For example, you bring food to your mouth to masticate. You don't put it on your forehead in attempt for it to roll down the side of your face perhaps in route to your mouth to consume.
Sure, if you wish to do it that way, it's a liberal way of doing it. Just doing whatever way you do.
But it's not in order. It's backwards and out of order. So it really comes down to what side you're on. Are you liberal?
If yes, then you ask "why we got to do it this way or that way? We do things any ole kind of way."
So why prevent certain things? You prevent what's not in order because you don't do everything any which a way.
Just saying this as a "cross the board" introduction of societal mindsets .
"Two boys can hold hands, cuddle, hug, kiss lips or kiss neck, kiss hands or kiss tummy, hold close to each other, pet on the head. Now, which one of these is exactly wrong? "
It's really inconclusive until a greater context is made. Is it monkey see, monkey do? How long is the kissing?
Is it manipulative or by force from a greater power?
I don't particularly hold immature children as exactly knowing better than what they're taught, exposed to or groomed into being which begs the question of homosexuality being programmed actually.
"If you agree that person(man) has a right to not marry and not be with a woman, then why cant such a person be in these forms of relationships?"
I agree people have the right meaning legal allowance . So by that , people do whatever they want.
"Like, whats the difference regarding the birth rates anyway?"
The difference is they would drop significantly. In spite of what you may think, the population numbers are available online as it is kept under monitoring. Then as to why homosexual images aren't pushed as heavily, it be obvious why images would be pulled back or removed if numbers get too low.
"But what do you mean? Would it be forced therapy? Would you force any man who wears skirts to such a therapy? I am not really for such therapy even if not forced, but if it is forced, then I am even more against it. Its against person's wishes, and person's wishes matter the most to the person."
It just like how I said it. I support and encourage it. If a person asks should the therapy be done, I say yes. If you ask me to be taken to therapy, I'll escort you. That's what support entails. You aid in the progression, process, program etc .
"I wouldnt agree that its homosexuality, because some trans girls look like girls, so what man is attracted to is very much a girl's appearance and a mind that wants to be a girl. So not great difference from non-trans girls."
Yes just like I indicated.
"For example, heterosexual isnt attracted to every person of opposite gender. And especially not equally attracted to every person of opposite gender, otherwise every heterosexual would be a pedophile."
Heterosexual doesn't mean attracted to every but only an opposite sex individual.
"Well, natural means reproducing and surviving. Those two are considered natural. But it is also natural and found in nature that some males do not reproduce because other males have taken all the females for themselves."
The question still remains of individuals that no longer participate in homosexual activities, does this give grounds to homosexuality not being an innate orientation?
"Disorder and order very much are just constructs of the mind."
You can say everything are constructs of the mind because that's how we interpret, detect, perceive and read things.
We're just sensing and reading things around us as they are presented either in a chaotic, disruptive order/disorder or in a proper peaceful order .
But the difference is in our mind versus social. In this context, it's not social at all.
"if your argument is about birth rates, then logic will lead you to conclusion that the sooner woman starts giving birth, the more children she can give birth to. Women usually get ability to get pregnant around age 10 to 13. Is thus that the perfect age for marriage, to improve birth rates?"
There is no "perfect age". Abortion occurs many times behind immaturity so that has to be incorporated concerning child births.
"I would say very much so. Trans people are often bullied in schools and online. They need to have rights so they can feel safe and their wishes respected."
Ok so the US president, congress, etc., can push for the right to prescription de-conversion therapy so that like anybody else won't be deprived and have equal access to that.
"Well, most shows are about straight people. Its kind of a heterosexual oppression of LGBT. The non-heterosexuals and supporters of LGBT do take a significant part of society, but arent well presented in media."
Why aren't LGBT at the forefront being pushed in all of entertainment?
Does it not sell or is it just the image of reality?
A reality that heterosexuality is only at the forefront and foundation.
"Well, gay people can reproduce. They still have all the parts which can be used for reproduction with woman. No reason they cant be gay while also reproducing with women. Plus, they dont take that much of a population to significantly reduce birth rates even if they couldnt reproduce."
When you say "reproducing with women", how can you be homosexual which means only being sexually active with the same sex, why would you be reproducing with the opposite sex?
"Well, gay people simply should have equal rights to achieve their wishes in our society. Imagine if it was other way around. If you were straight man, but homosexuals were majority and only homosexuals could reproduce. Would you prefer to be forced to have sex with men?"
If it would be in aid to sustaining mankind, sure. I understand that is not at the forefront to sustain mankind in individual minds but it does beg the question again of perpetuating life sustaining images.
"I dont think we are supposed to make them feel isolated or less worthy. It doesnt help us or them if we all are divided. It is better to be united as one group where every individual has place to realize at least some of his wishes."
"Supposed to" is one thing. However the reality of it is what it is. It is a niche of a group with a designated month of celebration. Now people do make similarities with "black" folks having a month of celebration and struggles and struggles for rights. "Black" folks are also a minority, a niche, non mainstream hence the crossover rhetoric whenever you hear it concerning pop or even billboard charts and genres.
I digress.
It is the reality perpetuated by media, advertisement and so forth, that homosexuality is a minority and not the backbone of society.
Pro
#4
So why prevent certain things? You prevent what's not in order because you don't do everything any which a way.
Order is determined by the mind.
It's really inconclusive until a greater context is made. Is it monkey see, monkey do? How long is the kissing?Is it manipulative or by force from a greater power?I don't particularly hold immature children as exactly knowing better than what they're taught, exposed to or groomed into being which begs the question of homosexuality being programmed actually.
Everything is programmed, but you didnt answer the question about which of those actions is wrong.
I agree people have the right meaning legal allowance . So by that , people do whatever they want.
You are not answering the question. The question wasnt about what is legally allowed.
The difference is they would drop significantly.
Not really. Gay women arent even 5% of population, and number of gay males is irrelevant to birth rates as 20% of men can make 100% of women pregnant. Plus, gay women can get pregnant too.
It just like how I said it. I support and encourage it.
Okay, so it is not forced.
Heterosexual doesn't mean attracted to every but only an opposite sex individual.
Well, the definition doesnt say which individual, and as explained, heterosexuals arent attracted to every person of opposite sex.
The question still remains of individuals that no longer participate in homosexual activities, does this give grounds to homosexuality not being an innate orientation?
Not really. Some people change. Some people stop being straight and become gay. It really goes both ways.
There is no "perfect age". Abortion occurs many times behind immaturity so that has to be incorporated concerning child births.
Thats not a counter-argument, because the number of abortions does not outweigh number of births, but choosing not to give birth till certain age aborts all pregancies till that age.
When you say "reproducing with women", how can you be homosexual which means only being sexually active with the same sex, why would you be reproducing with the opposite sex?
Plenty of gay people had their own kids.
Round 3
Con
#5
"Order is determined by the mind."
Which is in-turn given to by a process of information of that externally being communicated from.
"Everything is programmed, but you didnt answer the question about which of those actions is wrong."
So homosexuality is programmed and not natural. Is that correct?
"Not really. Gay women arent even 5% of population, and number of gay males is irrelevant to birth rates as 20% of men can make 100% of women pregnant. Plus, gay women can get pregnant too."
I'm not saying any specific numbers. I just know it be a significant or important difference because it is one not unnoticeable. So birth rates are affected by sexuality.
"Not really. Some people change. Some people stop being straight and become gay. It really goes both ways."
I agree that a heterosexual can be programmed particularly with images to be homosexual. Which has me to revisit the diagnosis declared I believe back in the 1970's.
"but choosing not to give birth till certain age aborts all pregancies till that age."
That's incorrect. Let me give you a spot on analogy. Me choosing to save my money is not throwing away my money. I'm abstaining from spending, right. But I'm not squandering my funds.
So not giving birth is not necessarily abortion, although abortion to you is not giving birth.
If the issue was just not giving birth, then we can't justify many groups that don't and indict all of them. Also, abortion can still be giving birth but just to what is called pregnancy "dead on arrival".
"Plenty of gay people had their own kids."
This still isn't clear. Are you saying homosexual men engage in reproductive sex with women?
Round 4
Con
#7
At least answer the questions unless you forfeit.
So homosexuality is programmed and not natural. Is that correct?
Are you saying homosexual men engage in reproductive sex with women?
Pro
#8
Alright, I will answer few questions. I just dont want to do long debates.
So homosexuality is programmed and not natural. Is that correct?
Everything is programmed. So is homosexuality. Nothing is natural or everything is.
Are you saying homosexual men engage in reproductive sex with women?
Some do, I guess. Much less than straight men, but it happens.
Round 5
Con
#9
"Everything is programmed. So is homosexuality. Nothing is natural or everything is."
Still not directly answering the question and I can understand why. If you say flat out "yes", the conveyance would be that what you can program or groom can be undone. Making homosexuality as a non biological necessitated behavior.
Which ending the debate is in your best interest to avoid defending an even more difficult onus. So wise but revealing and telling.
"Some do, I guess. Much less than straight men, but it happens."
This doesn't make sense. I don't believe you would really fight to disagree because number one you say you guess. Which is telling again ,that you're really not sure of what you're saying or talking about.
By nature and consent homosexual men will not engage in heterosexual behavior as that is completely antithetical.
But, there goes the topic.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
I am introducing a new type of debate on this site. I have sent you a message, in case you missed it. The topic will simply be trans and gays. Just raise some different points related to gays and trans, and we will see where we agree and where we disagree.
i would hv accepted but well, 5 rounds are too much