You were trolling according to your own definition by talking about me living in a fantasy land, Dunning Kruger, and other useless ad hominem inflammatory attacks. Also, look up the word "irony". The only one engaging in denialism is you, if you think about it. Why?...
...Well, Webster, Oxford, universities, and psychologists all acknowledge the semantic change with regards to gender *not* necessarily being synonymous with sex, and the term "woman" not necessarily having to be in terms of biology. There are tons of psychology journals that make it clear that gender, in 2022, is generally not regarded as the same as sex. A "woman" does not have to be defined biologically as ***the multiple definitions*** I provided prove.
However, you not accepting this reality and thinking it is still 1800 or something is magically supposed to be convincing. Instead of using actual logic you just throw out words like "fantasy land" as if that is supposed to be an argument.
Your whole case is based on an Appeal to Tradition fallacy, and can thus be rejected.
Conclusion? There has been a semantic change in the English language that allows "women" to be defined in terms of psychology and gender and necessarily not biological sex.
I proved beyond any reasonable doubt based on Webster and Oxford that the resolution is true and you just repeat flawed fallacious arguments I've already debunked or just repeat the term "fantasy land" as if that is supposed to be an argument. The resolution has been established based on the third definition of "woman" given by Webster in terms of having a "distinct feminine nature". Someone having an X nature is often synonymous with "character" when talking about humans, and character is a psychological state. Such as "George couldn't help but be generous, it is just in his nature". The idea it circles back to the traditional definition is something you made up. Womanliness means having the general character that is typically associated with biological woman...Even if the woman is *not* a woman biologically, they can still instantiate womanliness and thus be a woman psychologically by definition.
Your refusal to accept basic semantic change in terms of "gender" or "woman" based on your political biases don't change the reality this change exists in 2022. This change is recognized in all universities and by psychologists (a small band of right wing traditionalists can't change this). Also, obviously a semantic change has to go through the peer-review process before it becomes "official" but the change itself as far as use goes before it hits dictionaries has certainly been over night.
Please be a troll on someone else's debate. There is no way you can be serious with arguments this terrible...
1. A Semantic Change has clearly happened to the terms "Gender" and "Woman" as both MW and Oxford make perfectly clear. Oxford even says the term gender should be "considered with reference to social and cultural differences, RATHER THAN differences in biology" in their MAIN definition. Also, gender is certainly "associated" with sex, it just doesn't mean the same thing necessarily.
2. A Semantic Change isn't necessarily a REPLACEMENT but an ADDITION, especially in this case. The traditional definition of "woman" is still valid in the context of biological sex even if there are different additional definitions in terms of psychology, society, and gender.
3. A Semantic Change does not have to be gradual over time and there is no literary rule which states this has to be the case. There are lots of examples of semantic changes that occurred essentially over night.
4. There being a MAIN definition doesn't mean it is the ONLY definition. Other definitions are valid regardless of whether they are main definition or not.
5. Trans people being a small less-than-1% minority doesn't mean only trans people agree with this Semantic Change. The support for these semantic changes is largely supported by non-trans people and is actually common place in today's society.
6. Trans women have "a distinctly feminine nature" (one of Webster's definition of "Women") despite not being biological females. Therefore, in one sense of the term "woman", the term "trans women are women" is a valid claim and the resolution has been established. I only had to show the claim to be valid in one sense of the word "woman" not all senses of the word.
in 1988 the term "web" only had one basic meaning, then in 1989 the word "web" referred to the internet.
In the year 2005 the term "cloud" had certain meanings, then in 2006 the term cloud expanded to also mean "a singular network of servers".
You literally just made up the idea that semantic changes need to happen gradually over time. There is literally no rule that states this.
Also, just because a small population are trans, doesn't mean that only a small population agrees with the definition change of gender. In fact, their are more non-trans supporters of this change than there are non-trans detractors on the right. This is just an ad populum fallacy on your behalf anyway.
Your argument is fallacious as you assume one has to be trans in order to agree with this semantic change. That does not follow.
Also, this semantic change is only an ADDITION, not a REPLACEMENT. Nobody is "fixing" the traditional definition it is still perfectly valid in it's own context.
In conclusion? Both Webster and Oxford make it clear that gender can be referred to in terms of a social construct and psychology and don't have to by synonymous with biological sex. WM even has a definition of "woman" that says "a distinctly feminine nature", which one can have without being a biological female.
Thus, "trans women are women" is a valid claim in terms of gender and the resolution has been established.
Just because you don't like that a word can have more than one meaning doesn't mean anything. This is just wishful thinking on your behalf.
I specifically cited one of Webster's dictionary definitions of "Woman" ("a distinctly feminine nature"). So to say I "did not" is just a blatant lie on your behalf. One word can have more than one meaning as WM clearly shows. Even if "an adult human female being" is completely valid in terms of biology in sex, it wasn't the only definition given in terms of psychology and gender.
Also, in the real world, you keep committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy. This is a basic logical error. Maybe it isn't in fantasy land, but it is in reality.
It doesn't matter if sex and gender "have been" synonymous with each other, they are not now in 2022.
Webster defines gender as "“the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex”. So if an adult biological male has psychological states typically associated with a female, then a woman would be their gender, just not their sex. It also doesn't matter if it is not THE main definition, as long as it is A definition then what I'm saying still holds.
MAIN doesn't mean ONLY.
Oxford makes it clear that the term gender should be “considered with reference to social and cultural differences, NOT differences in biology” in their MAIN definition.
Did you read that? Gender is in reference to social and cultural differences NOT differences in biology.
All you have done is just say "nuh uh your argument is fallacious" without actually explaining why it is fallacious besides crying "false equivalency" improperly on several occasions. Your argument contradicts basic dictionary definitions.
I gave a definition from the Webster dictionary that defines "woman" in terms of feminine characteristics and I expanded on it, and this definition had nothing to do with the person being biologically female.
As far as the term "gender" goes, is not synonymous with "sex" or completely determined by sex in today's world. Semantic changes are common in the English language, and you are committing the basic Appeal To Tradition fallacy by stating that because something has historically been a certain way, then that is the way it should remain. That is a basic logical error on your behalf. Slavery was common place for hundreds of years, should we have kept it? Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it is the right way.
Stop committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy, and maybe we can get somewhere.
Now, Webster defines gender as: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
So if an adult human biological male has the "typical psychological traits typically associated" with adult human biological females, then this person's gender would be woman BY DEFINITION, even if they are *NOT* a "woman" in terms of biological sex.
I'm sorry you are stuck in your outdated views, but in 2022 the term gender mostly refers to a social construct based on psychology. No trans woman thinks they are biologically female. When they say they are a "woman", they mean psychologically in terms of gender and not sex.
In conclusion, since trans women are women psychologically in terms of gender, then they are woman in at least one sense of the term. This holds true even if they are not biologically women in terms of sex. Both meanings of the term "woman" are valid in their respective contexts.
Therefore, I have self-evidently established the resolution. "Trans women are women" is valid claim in at least one sense (the sense in terms of psychology and gender). They just are not woman in terms of biology and sex.
Oh and there is no wishful thinking argument on my behalf that is a straw-man fallacy committed by you. I am simply going off basic definitions ***given by the dictionary*** itself. It is no more wishful thinking than to define a "road" as "an open way for vehicles, persons, and animals especially".
When I am using dictionary definitions, they are obviously not based on my own personal wishful thinking. That is just an absurd claim by you...
One term can have multiple meanings (this is called a homonym), thus there is no issue with biological males being women if by the term “women” we mean “women” *psychologically* and not *biologically*.
The resolution was trivially easy to establish, as it is self-evidently true in terms of gender (just not in terms of sex).
I am not disputing scientific fact here, ***only adult human females can only be women biologically. No matter how much a male mutilates genitals or feels feminine this male will never be a biological woman***.
We both agree there with the above, there is no dispute there. So when you say that is an established fact I agree! If you think I would ever disagree, you obviously haven’t been paying attention.
Now, the point is, this person can be a woman psychologically, even if this person can never be a woman biologically.
Both meanings of the term “woman” are equally valid in their own contexts, just like both meanings of the term “cold blooded” are equally valid in their own contexts.
I only had to establish that trans women are women in *one* sense of the word not *every* sense of the word. Which I did….
The definition is part of my opening argument, and is a surprise.
Thus, of course, accepting this debate does NOT mean accepting my definition. The definition is the thing being debated... It will be the challenge of Con to argue that the definition I provide in my opening arguments is NOT a reasonable use of the term and only the traditional definition of "woman" (an adult human female) is valid.
I'll just respond here, as I cannot edit the debate outline at this time.
Male is XY Chromosomes (typically with genitalia such as a penis and testicles) and female is XX Chromosomes (typically with genitalia such as vagina, ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes etc.).
A reasonable definition of woman based on either a Webster or Oxford definition will be provided as *part of my argument*, that hopefully, I can argue include biological males.
It will be the job of Con to argue that the traditional definition of "adult human female" is the only reasonable definition of the term "woman", and thus ,"trans women are women" is an invalid claim.
Remember, my definition of "woman" has to be deemed reasonable by the voters. I can't just say they are mammals or something to cheaply win the debate by default.
You were trolling according to your own definition by talking about me living in a fantasy land, Dunning Kruger, and other useless ad hominem inflammatory attacks. Also, look up the word "irony". The only one engaging in denialism is you, if you think about it. Why?...
...Well, Webster, Oxford, universities, and psychologists all acknowledge the semantic change with regards to gender *not* necessarily being synonymous with sex, and the term "woman" not necessarily having to be in terms of biology. There are tons of psychology journals that make it clear that gender, in 2022, is generally not regarded as the same as sex. A "woman" does not have to be defined biologically as ***the multiple definitions*** I provided prove.
However, you not accepting this reality and thinking it is still 1800 or something is magically supposed to be convincing. Instead of using actual logic you just throw out words like "fantasy land" as if that is supposed to be an argument.
Your whole case is based on an Appeal to Tradition fallacy, and can thus be rejected.
Conclusion? There has been a semantic change in the English language that allows "women" to be defined in terms of psychology and gender and necessarily not biological sex.
It is clear you are just a troll.
I proved beyond any reasonable doubt based on Webster and Oxford that the resolution is true and you just repeat flawed fallacious arguments I've already debunked or just repeat the term "fantasy land" as if that is supposed to be an argument. The resolution has been established based on the third definition of "woman" given by Webster in terms of having a "distinct feminine nature". Someone having an X nature is often synonymous with "character" when talking about humans, and character is a psychological state. Such as "George couldn't help but be generous, it is just in his nature". The idea it circles back to the traditional definition is something you made up. Womanliness means having the general character that is typically associated with biological woman...Even if the woman is *not* a woman biologically, they can still instantiate womanliness and thus be a woman psychologically by definition.
Your refusal to accept basic semantic change in terms of "gender" or "woman" based on your political biases don't change the reality this change exists in 2022. This change is recognized in all universities and by psychologists (a small band of right wing traditionalists can't change this). Also, obviously a semantic change has to go through the peer-review process before it becomes "official" but the change itself as far as use goes before it hits dictionaries has certainly been over night.
Please be a troll on someone else's debate. There is no way you can be serious with arguments this terrible...
Main points to respond to keep this short.
1. A Semantic Change has clearly happened to the terms "Gender" and "Woman" as both MW and Oxford make perfectly clear. Oxford even says the term gender should be "considered with reference to social and cultural differences, RATHER THAN differences in biology" in their MAIN definition. Also, gender is certainly "associated" with sex, it just doesn't mean the same thing necessarily.
2. A Semantic Change isn't necessarily a REPLACEMENT but an ADDITION, especially in this case. The traditional definition of "woman" is still valid in the context of biological sex even if there are different additional definitions in terms of psychology, society, and gender.
3. A Semantic Change does not have to be gradual over time and there is no literary rule which states this has to be the case. There are lots of examples of semantic changes that occurred essentially over night.
4. There being a MAIN definition doesn't mean it is the ONLY definition. Other definitions are valid regardless of whether they are main definition or not.
5. Trans people being a small less-than-1% minority doesn't mean only trans people agree with this Semantic Change. The support for these semantic changes is largely supported by non-trans people and is actually common place in today's society.
6. Trans women have "a distinctly feminine nature" (one of Webster's definition of "Women") despite not being biological females. Therefore, in one sense of the term "woman", the term "trans women are women" is a valid claim and the resolution has been established. I only had to show the claim to be valid in one sense of the word "woman" not all senses of the word.
Also semantic changes have happened instantly.
in 1988 the term "web" only had one basic meaning, then in 1989 the word "web" referred to the internet.
In the year 2005 the term "cloud" had certain meanings, then in 2006 the term cloud expanded to also mean "a singular network of servers".
You literally just made up the idea that semantic changes need to happen gradually over time. There is literally no rule that states this.
Also, just because a small population are trans, doesn't mean that only a small population agrees with the definition change of gender. In fact, their are more non-trans supporters of this change than there are non-trans detractors on the right. This is just an ad populum fallacy on your behalf anyway.
Your argument is fallacious as you assume one has to be trans in order to agree with this semantic change. That does not follow.
Also, this semantic change is only an ADDITION, not a REPLACEMENT. Nobody is "fixing" the traditional definition it is still perfectly valid in it's own context.
In conclusion? Both Webster and Oxford make it clear that gender can be referred to in terms of a social construct and psychology and don't have to by synonymous with biological sex. WM even has a definition of "woman" that says "a distinctly feminine nature", which one can have without being a biological female.
Thus, "trans women are women" is a valid claim in terms of gender and the resolution has been established.
Just because you don't like that a word can have more than one meaning doesn't mean anything. This is just wishful thinking on your behalf.
To TWS1405.
I specifically cited one of Webster's dictionary definitions of "Woman" ("a distinctly feminine nature"). So to say I "did not" is just a blatant lie on your behalf. One word can have more than one meaning as WM clearly shows. Even if "an adult human female being" is completely valid in terms of biology in sex, it wasn't the only definition given in terms of psychology and gender.
Also, in the real world, you keep committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy. This is a basic logical error. Maybe it isn't in fantasy land, but it is in reality.
It doesn't matter if sex and gender "have been" synonymous with each other, they are not now in 2022.
Webster defines gender as "“the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex”. So if an adult biological male has psychological states typically associated with a female, then a woman would be their gender, just not their sex. It also doesn't matter if it is not THE main definition, as long as it is A definition then what I'm saying still holds.
MAIN doesn't mean ONLY.
Oxford makes it clear that the term gender should be “considered with reference to social and cultural differences, NOT differences in biology” in their MAIN definition.
Did you read that? Gender is in reference to social and cultural differences NOT differences in biology.
All you have done is just say "nuh uh your argument is fallacious" without actually explaining why it is fallacious besides crying "false equivalency" improperly on several occasions. Your argument contradicts basic dictionary definitions.
I gave a definition from the Webster dictionary that defines "woman" in terms of feminine characteristics and I expanded on it, and this definition had nothing to do with the person being biologically female.
As far as the term "gender" goes, is not synonymous with "sex" or completely determined by sex in today's world. Semantic changes are common in the English language, and you are committing the basic Appeal To Tradition fallacy by stating that because something has historically been a certain way, then that is the way it should remain. That is a basic logical error on your behalf. Slavery was common place for hundreds of years, should we have kept it? Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it is the right way.
Stop committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy, and maybe we can get somewhere.
Now, Webster defines gender as: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
So if an adult human biological male has the "typical psychological traits typically associated" with adult human biological females, then this person's gender would be woman BY DEFINITION, even if they are *NOT* a "woman" in terms of biological sex.
I'm sorry you are stuck in your outdated views, but in 2022 the term gender mostly refers to a social construct based on psychology. No trans woman thinks they are biologically female. When they say they are a "woman", they mean psychologically in terms of gender and not sex.
In conclusion, since trans women are women psychologically in terms of gender, then they are woman in at least one sense of the term. This holds true even if they are not biologically women in terms of sex. Both meanings of the term "woman" are valid in their respective contexts.
Therefore, I have self-evidently established the resolution. "Trans women are women" is valid claim in at least one sense (the sense in terms of psychology and gender). They just are not woman in terms of biology and sex.
Oh and there is no wishful thinking argument on my behalf that is a straw-man fallacy committed by you. I am simply going off basic definitions ***given by the dictionary*** itself. It is no more wishful thinking than to define a "road" as "an open way for vehicles, persons, and animals especially".
When I am using dictionary definitions, they are obviously not based on my own personal wishful thinking. That is just an absurd claim by you...
One term can have multiple meanings (this is called a homonym), thus there is no issue with biological males being women if by the term “women” we mean “women” *psychologically* and not *biologically*.
The resolution was trivially easy to establish, as it is self-evidently true in terms of gender (just not in terms of sex).
I am not disputing scientific fact here, ***only adult human females can only be women biologically. No matter how much a male mutilates genitals or feels feminine this male will never be a biological woman***.
We both agree there with the above, there is no dispute there. So when you say that is an established fact I agree! If you think I would ever disagree, you obviously haven’t been paying attention.
Now, the point is, this person can be a woman psychologically, even if this person can never be a woman biologically.
Both meanings of the term “woman” are equally valid in their own contexts, just like both meanings of the term “cold blooded” are equally valid in their own contexts.
I only had to establish that trans women are women in *one* sense of the word not *every* sense of the word. Which I did….
I was known as "Rational Thinker" back then.
Appreciate it! I had a huge presence on Debate.Org back in the day. I wanted to get back into online debates but saw the site is no more :(
I'm glad I found this one.
The definition is part of my opening argument, and is a surprise.
Thus, of course, accepting this debate does NOT mean accepting my definition. The definition is the thing being debated... It will be the challenge of Con to argue that the definition I provide in my opening arguments is NOT a reasonable use of the term and only the traditional definition of "woman" (an adult human female) is valid.
I'll just respond here, as I cannot edit the debate outline at this time.
Male is XY Chromosomes (typically with genitalia such as a penis and testicles) and female is XX Chromosomes (typically with genitalia such as vagina, ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes etc.).
A reasonable definition of woman based on either a Webster or Oxford definition will be provided as *part of my argument*, that hopefully, I can argue include biological males.
It will be the job of Con to argue that the traditional definition of "adult human female" is the only reasonable definition of the term "woman", and thus ,"trans women are women" is an invalid claim.
Remember, my definition of "woman" has to be deemed reasonable by the voters. I can't just say they are mammals or something to cheaply win the debate by default.