Would have usually had an argument submitted by now, but as I’m amidst both a house move and the commencing of my second semester, I’ll utalise more of my time.
You can't name me one word, out of the 171,146 English words that exist, that follow your so called "unorthodox" grammatical rules. It sounds like you are the one with the cumbersome burden here.
Stop saying "unconventional" - it's circular and known as a fallacy. You are asking me why circularity isn't acceptable as a definition, but I hold that it is axiomatic. I suppose this is just a point of disagreement - you believe words can be circular and I don't.
Ok, then what is the definition? You realise that you aren't getting away with this - if you can't define "female" then your entire argument collapses.
“ Gender identity is a label, which people can self-elect because they want to adopt the social role *associated* with that label”
This is the first time you have ever proposed a non circular definition. You are asserting that “female” is a label which people adopt because of the social see les associated with that label. This is a common definition, however it is erroneous. Whatever “social role” you can define for me (you haven’t done so yet) is one which will inevitably render some “women” (who don’t wish to conform to your proposed roles) “non females”. I ask, what is so difficult in just accepting the scientifically sound “sex” definition?
The meaning of a word is literally it's definition.
"People might "identify" as female because of a set of reasons, e.g. they prefer to have long hair, breasts, have a certain personality, etc. - but presumably we agree that these things aren't part of the *definition* because there are women who don't have those things."
This is incoherent, because you are merely describing being feminine. How do you make the leap from feminine to literal female. If these things aren't part of the definition, then why are you mentioning it? If you say that transgendered people switch from say male to female, and you say they change because of a set of reasons (long hair etc), but yet you say those reasons are not related to the terms male or female, then it doesn't answer the question of why one switches from a male to a female.
If a person has depression, we don’t say “ok because this has a biological grounding, we ought propel it I.e help the depressed person commit”. Instead, we battle the mindset and right the wrong.
I already explained how names are different - names are labels for people which do not opine on the objective state of a being i.e sex, age etc. If it were the case that female is a label in the same way names are, then why do people need the physically transition? Obviously, they wish to be as close to biological women as possible.
Further, it isn't a stretch to say that all nouns ought to reference some thing. This is axiomatic. The definition, "female is that who wants to be female" is vacuous - for what the question then becomes "what does it mean when someone say they want to be female".
Further, the stuff about age and the animals comparison was an attempt at reductio ad absurdum by showing that your driving mechanism for determining gender (feelings) is incoherent.
A quick note because I do not tend to delve into comment section debates. My argument was not merely that gender was an untruth because it was unscientific (my alleged conflating of gender and sex), but that it simply did not possess the means for manifesting a coherent definition I.e escape circularity. You say that such a fallacy is merely an “unorthodox use of grammar”, but categorising it under a seperate label doesn’t remove the circularity - words refer to objects which are not exclusively themselves.
The topical stipulation revolves around the term "balance", which is defined as a predominating amount; a preponderance - unless CON can argue that 10 year olds being pregnant is what constitutes the "predominating amount" of abortions, then the point is null.
Moreover, this nit picking can be used to cut your way as well - how would you feel if pro-lifers constantly droned about the one percent in which women get abortions at the 8th month in the third trimester? How would you respond if they attacked Hillary Clinton's position, that women ought have the right to, just before giving birth, pull the baby out and murder it, so long as the head remains in the women? Such narrow arguments is indicative of one who is unable to defend the wider proposition and instead cherry pick at infinitesimally unlikely scenarios.
The utilization of a 1 percent scenario in order to justify the 99 percent is ineffective - I've noticed a trend in which pro-choicers will often target the 1% of scenarios in order to render more credence to the totality of their belief. The laymen's pro-choice argument almost always mentions rape or incest, and seldom address the 99 percent of abortions.
We could perhaps make this a 2 round debate if you are busy? I assume you will almost max out your 17,000 character limit so the debate will already be quite substantial.
"My arguments have always been a) trans women are biologically women"
This should be okay then, I think. I only use the term "female" because "women" is literally just "adult female", so everything I argue about female should apply to a young female.
I think that the second topic you propose "gender is a more useful way to define male or female than biological sex" sort of implies that we ought use gender, which also means we ought to define female within gender, because obviously our society wouldn't define gender in something other than the most useful definition.
I'll think about modifying the Resolution to something which better suits the use of our discussion.
I feel like my resolution is most general and best suited and most applicable. You say your argument is that "If you look at a collection of physical characteristics to define what a woman is (which I agree is how it should be done), you'll find that a lot of trans women fits into that category just as much as cis women do" so you can just argue something along the lines of "female is defined as that who socially presents themselves in that manner".
Don't want to go to into debate territory here, especially as I am intending on having a proper debate on this subject. I don't really get the distinction between "THBT in most useful definitions, a trans woman/man is a woman/man" and the proposed resolution - isn't it already the case that we ought define "female" with the most useful definition?
""Defining a woman by things like her chromosomes is pointless. If you took a woman and changed her chromosomes (women who possess all biological traits of females but have male chromosomes do exist and are not an insignificant portion of the population), she would still be a woman; it would be ridiculous to say otherwise in anything more than a t e c h n i c a l l y correct manner (based on a pointless definition)""
I think we ought look at the definition which, on balance, explains the most that we observe. The human body is complex, and with the billions of people that exists, issues and technicalities are bound to occur - this doesn't mean we can't define "female". With the same line of logic, "species" could hardly be defined either - I am dubious that there is one feature which every single human being that has ever existed shares. Of course, we instead look at the plethora, hence why I defined "female" as not "X characteristic", but as biologically grounded concept which considers all factors".
I also think that your mentions of endocrinologists and gynecologists isn't necessarily a good comparison - both the definitions are largely compatible. Gender, when defined as "that who identifies as a either male, female or other" is not only non compatible, but in direct tension with definitions from all facets of science. My proposed definition, "a scientifically and biologically grounded concept which differences between "male" and "female" is in essence a generalisation of the scientific half of the debate, whilst the "gender" stance is, I believe, wholly incompatible. Whilst the formers vehicle of understanding is biological fact, the latter operates in a completely different medium.
rbelivb's vote should be tossed and of the charts, Novice seems to be more convincing. I wouldn't have voted though, cross checking all the seemingly contradictory sources provided by PRO and CON and ensuring that correlation was actually causation would have taken too much time.
The reason for my emphasis on the term "define" is because it is my belief that the trans-ideology's most serious fault is its inability to define "women" or "female" cogently. I'm interested in THBT in most useful definitions, a trans woman/man is a woman/man - I'll let you know within a few hours.
I'm interested in the last topic, but as it is highly scientific, I must do a lot of research. After all, I might be wrong! But nonetheless, what are your thoughts on the transgender swimming ban?
How would you have worded the resolution? I think it is clear what me and Rbelivb are trying to argue but the construction of the resolution in a way which forbid kritiks is actually quite difficult.
I definitely enjoyed the contest as I felt that you honestly engaged with my arguments. Thanks for a good debate!
Would have usually had an argument submitted by now, but as I’m amidst both a house move and the commencing of my second semester, I’ll utalise more of my time.
You can't name me one word, out of the 171,146 English words that exist, that follow your so called "unorthodox" grammatical rules. It sounds like you are the one with the cumbersome burden here.
Give me a single word in the English Dictionary which is inherently circular.
Stop saying "unconventional" - it's circular and known as a fallacy. You are asking me why circularity isn't acceptable as a definition, but I hold that it is axiomatic. I suppose this is just a point of disagreement - you believe words can be circular and I don't.
"It is not a definition, and that is exactly why"
Ok, then what is the definition? You realise that you aren't getting away with this - if you can't define "female" then your entire argument collapses.
“ Gender identity is a label, which people can self-elect because they want to adopt the social role *associated* with that label”
This is the first time you have ever proposed a non circular definition. You are asserting that “female” is a label which people adopt because of the social see les associated with that label. This is a common definition, however it is erroneous. Whatever “social role” you can define for me (you haven’t done so yet) is one which will inevitably render some “women” (who don’t wish to conform to your proposed roles) “non females”. I ask, what is so difficult in just accepting the scientifically sound “sex” definition?
The meaning of a word is literally it's definition.
"People might "identify" as female because of a set of reasons, e.g. they prefer to have long hair, breasts, have a certain personality, etc. - but presumably we agree that these things aren't part of the *definition* because there are women who don't have those things."
This is incoherent, because you are merely describing being feminine. How do you make the leap from feminine to literal female. If these things aren't part of the definition, then why are you mentioning it? If you say that transgendered people switch from say male to female, and you say they change because of a set of reasons (long hair etc), but yet you say those reasons are not related to the terms male or female, then it doesn't answer the question of why one switches from a male to a female.
If a person has depression, we don’t say “ok because this has a biological grounding, we ought propel it I.e help the depressed person commit”. Instead, we battle the mindset and right the wrong.
There are also genes correlated with depression, yet we don't support these manifestations.
I already explained how names are different - names are labels for people which do not opine on the objective state of a being i.e sex, age etc. If it were the case that female is a label in the same way names are, then why do people need the physically transition? Obviously, they wish to be as close to biological women as possible.
Further, it isn't a stretch to say that all nouns ought to reference some thing. This is axiomatic. The definition, "female is that who wants to be female" is vacuous - for what the question then becomes "what does it mean when someone say they want to be female".
Then gender wouldn't be founded on "feelings" and rather biology, which, if true, sounds a whole lot like sex.
Further, the stuff about age and the animals comparison was an attempt at reductio ad absurdum by showing that your driving mechanism for determining gender (feelings) is incoherent.
A quick note because I do not tend to delve into comment section debates. My argument was not merely that gender was an untruth because it was unscientific (my alleged conflating of gender and sex), but that it simply did not possess the means for manifesting a coherent definition I.e escape circularity. You say that such a fallacy is merely an “unorthodox use of grammar”, but categorising it under a seperate label doesn’t remove the circularity - words refer to objects which are not exclusively themselves.
You can say anything you want that's within reason I don't really care.
Vote bump. Ten days to go.
I've gone over the 10k mark, but a lot of it is just me quoting what you said (a seriously large portion).
Sorry boss I'll cut it out.
The topical stipulation revolves around the term "balance", which is defined as a predominating amount; a preponderance - unless CON can argue that 10 year olds being pregnant is what constitutes the "predominating amount" of abortions, then the point is null.
Moreover, this nit picking can be used to cut your way as well - how would you feel if pro-lifers constantly droned about the one percent in which women get abortions at the 8th month in the third trimester? How would you respond if they attacked Hillary Clinton's position, that women ought have the right to, just before giving birth, pull the baby out and murder it, so long as the head remains in the women? Such narrow arguments is indicative of one who is unable to defend the wider proposition and instead cherry pick at infinitesimally unlikely scenarios.
The utilization of a 1 percent scenario in order to justify the 99 percent is ineffective - I've noticed a trend in which pro-choicers will often target the 1% of scenarios in order to render more credence to the totality of their belief. The laymen's pro-choice argument almost always mentions rape or incest, and seldom address the 99 percent of abortions.
An unborn is denied right to life because of some womens bad choice. Think of the millions dead since Roe.
Looks like mereological nihilism to me.
No worries, I'll try my best to keep it around the 10k mark.
We could perhaps make this a 2 round debate if you are busy? I assume you will almost max out your 17,000 character limit so the debate will already be quite substantial.
THBT: We ought to use the definition of “female” which prohibits non biologically female beings from being female.
Again, I use “female” as opposed to women not as some trap, but because “women” is literally just older female.
"My arguments have always been a) trans women are biologically women"
This should be okay then, I think. I only use the term "female" because "women" is literally just "adult female", so everything I argue about female should apply to a young female.
I think that the second topic you propose "gender is a more useful way to define male or female than biological sex" sort of implies that we ought use gender, which also means we ought to define female within gender, because obviously our society wouldn't define gender in something other than the most useful definition.
I'll think about modifying the Resolution to something which better suits the use of our discussion.
I feel like my resolution is most general and best suited and most applicable. You say your argument is that "If you look at a collection of physical characteristics to define what a woman is (which I agree is how it should be done), you'll find that a lot of trans women fits into that category just as much as cis women do" so you can just argue something along the lines of "female is defined as that who socially presents themselves in that manner".
Don't want to go to into debate territory here, especially as I am intending on having a proper debate on this subject. I don't really get the distinction between "THBT in most useful definitions, a trans woman/man is a woman/man" and the proposed resolution - isn't it already the case that we ought define "female" with the most useful definition?
""Defining a woman by things like her chromosomes is pointless. If you took a woman and changed her chromosomes (women who possess all biological traits of females but have male chromosomes do exist and are not an insignificant portion of the population), she would still be a woman; it would be ridiculous to say otherwise in anything more than a t e c h n i c a l l y correct manner (based on a pointless definition)""
I think we ought look at the definition which, on balance, explains the most that we observe. The human body is complex, and with the billions of people that exists, issues and technicalities are bound to occur - this doesn't mean we can't define "female". With the same line of logic, "species" could hardly be defined either - I am dubious that there is one feature which every single human being that has ever existed shares. Of course, we instead look at the plethora, hence why I defined "female" as not "X characteristic", but as biologically grounded concept which considers all factors".
I also think that your mentions of endocrinologists and gynecologists isn't necessarily a good comparison - both the definitions are largely compatible. Gender, when defined as "that who identifies as a either male, female or other" is not only non compatible, but in direct tension with definitions from all facets of science. My proposed definition, "a scientifically and biologically grounded concept which differences between "male" and "female" is in essence a generalisation of the scientific half of the debate, whilst the "gender" stance is, I believe, wholly incompatible. Whilst the formers vehicle of understanding is biological fact, the latter operates in a completely different medium.
rbelivb's vote should be tossed and of the charts, Novice seems to be more convincing. I wouldn't have voted though, cross checking all the seemingly contradictory sources provided by PRO and CON and ensuring that correlation was actually causation would have taken too much time.
The reason for my emphasis on the term "define" is because it is my belief that the trans-ideology's most serious fault is its inability to define "women" or "female" cogently. I'm interested in THBT in most useful definitions, a trans woman/man is a woman/man - I'll let you know within a few hours.
I'm interested in the last topic, but as it is highly scientific, I must do a lot of research. After all, I might be wrong! But nonetheless, what are your thoughts on the transgender swimming ban?
Always been interested in debating you. Would you be interested in running this topic?
Elaborate.
How would you have worded the resolution? I think it is clear what me and Rbelivb are trying to argue but the construction of the resolution in a way which forbid kritiks is actually quite difficult.
Good luck!
There is no way yall doing God debates without me.
The good old wylted days.
Is the topic "Being LGBT is nothing to be proud of" or, as stated in the description "reasons why the lgbt community is bad for society"
Some votes would be good, considering how this debate will close in 5 days.
Pleasure. Word of advice: In your next debates, avoid the word "definitely". Rarely anything is definite in life.
Ain't no way you guys are enjoying this debate.
noob sniping
Yours.
Me and you can run this debate if you wish.
Petition to have press conferences before heated debates whereby each contestant slings insults at the other.
I'm starting to see where the 98 wins came from.
how does someone win?
We've got to run this God debate.
Fresh blood! Welcome to the cite.