Instigator / Pro
semperfortis's avatar
7
semperfortis
1684
rating
15
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#1198

Debate Art should change their “gender” option and replace it with “sex”, where only “male” or “female” are options

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
0

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

semperfortis
Tags
Society
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Speedrace's avatar
3
Speedrace
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description

Full resolution:
Debate Art should change their “gender” option and replace it with “sex”, where only “male” or “female” are options

BoP is shared.

In “edit profile”, Debate Art currently provides a ‘gender’ field with multiple options for a user to choose from. For Pro to fulfill their BoP they must reasonably assert why this field should be replaced with a “sex” field with “male” and “female” as its only options. As Con, they ought to argue why the current gender field, with it's current options ought
not to be replaced by a sex field. Moreover, it is to be assumed that there can only exist either the sex field or the gender field; hence it should be argued why one should take precedence over the other.

Sex - “the sex as determined by the presence of the XX (female) or the XY (male) genotype in somatic cells, without regard to phenotypic manifestations.”

Gender - “either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female

Format:
R1: Pro provides opening statements and waives, Con provides opening argument
R2: Pro provides opening argument with rebuttal, Con rebuts
R3: Defence/rebuttal
R4: Defence, with closing statements (no new rebuttals)

Round 1
semperfortis's avatar
semperfortis
Pro
#1
I thank Speedrace for accepting this debate.

I will affirm the resolution by showing that the internal consistency of the "gender" field is incoherent and is  scientifically imprecise relative to the "sex" field. Moreover, I will also convey that the "sex" field can provide consistent data for DA. 

Alas, I await Speedrace's opening case. Good luck.
Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
Con
#2
Thank you to semperfortis for this debate challenge!

Opening

The benefit of the "gender" option over the "sex" option is that the gender option simply has more choices. Simply being limited to male or female prevents some people from expressing who they feel that they are more. There is no downside to giving people more options.

Generally Not Needed

Besides the point made previously, what debater on this website actually check profiles for gender? Going to check someone's profile for their gender is simply not common and not needed that much, especially since this is an online space where gender does not matter that much. Therefore, a change in the options is simply not needed.

Unnecessary

Another point is that there is essentially no real difference between both of the proposed options, besides one (that being the gender option) having an extra choice of "other." Because of that, if the options were to be switched, Mike (the owner of the website) would be unnecessarily wasting time that could spent and any number of much more important projects on the website. This reason alone is enough to win me the debate. And I would like to point out that the resolution is that the option should be CHANGED, not simply that one option is better than the other, so the process and resources that go into changing the options should, therefore, be considered in this debate. Clearly, they weigh in favor of me.

Conclusion

Based on the reasons above, it is safe to conclude that Debateart.com should not change the "gender" option in the profiles to a "sex" option.
Round 2
semperfortis's avatar
semperfortis
Pro
#3
== Aff ==
 
Preface
Before I begin, I would like to identify key parts about this debate. Per the description, Con ought to advocate for the “gender” field; comprised of the following options: “male”, “female” or “other” using social or cultural factors to be able to distinguish between these three categories. Thus, my arguments aim to show that one cannot coherently distinguish between said categories using “social” or “cultural” factors. Hence, nullifying the coherency of the field as a whole. Moreover, I aim to show that the “sex” field can absolutely distinguish between “male” and “female”, thus it is the only coherent option. 
 
A1. Sex is rooted in biology whereas gender is not

1.1   “Sex” is scientifically precise
Per the biological definition for “sex” provided; the distinction between male and females rely on the genotype of the somatic cells. Simply, those who possess somatic cells with XX genotypes are female, and those with XY are male [1].  Thus, the notion of “sex” is reducible to facts grounded in the physical world. The importance of this will be shown later. 
 
1.1.1   Intersex
It could be argued that intersex people can’t coherently align with either “male” or “female” which could seem problematic for my position. However, it is a misconception that intersex are neither male nor female; let’s examine the types of intersex:

i)                    46, XX DSD
This is where the person possesses the chromosomes of a woman, but the external genitalia appears male [2].  Obviously, one with this form of intersex can still be deemed female. 
 
ii)                   46, XY DSD
Identical to XX intersex, except one is male [2].
 
iii)                 46, XX ovotesticular DSD
Here is where more of a compelling argument can be made; as a person with this form is born with both ovarian and testicular tissue; and can even have both XX and XY chromosomes [3]. However, per the definition of sexes provided, the genotype only applies to “somatic cells” which do not include reproductive cells. 
 
iv)                 Sex chromosome DSD
This is where a male or a female is born with either an extra or missing X chromosome. Regardless, one that still has a Y chromosome is denoted as male [3]. 
 
 
1.2 “Gender” is scientifically imprecise
Here, I argue that “gender” is irreducible to physical fact. Gender,  relies on “social” and “cultural” factors when determining whether one is “male”, “female” or “other”.  These factors are wholly unquantifiable and subjective; how could one distinguish themselves as absolutely “male”, “female” or “other” using subjective factors with it actually having coherent value? To say that something is “more X”, “less X”, “X but not Y” one needs to *demonstrate a method with which he/she/other can determine the value of X*.  
 
1.2.1 Supervenience
In science, observations are reducible; for example, if we were to analyse the temperature of a closed system, we would find that temperature is actually reducible to the vibration of particles. Thus, temperature supervenes on grounded empirical axioms (law of thermodynamics).  B-Properties supervene on A-Properties [4]; temperature equates to a B-Property supervening on the A-Property that is particle vibration. B-properties change if and only ifA-Properties are changed; you increase the vibration of the particles (add energy to the system), the temperature changes (the temperature of the system increases). Indeed, to talk of the temperature of a system being 0 degrees and not 100 degrees is coherent as temperature is reducible to a quantifiable measurement grounded in the physical world.
The issue here is it is impossible for “male”, “female” or “other” to supervene on “social” or “cultural” factors as *these factors are not reducible to any fact about the physical world*. Thus, to distinguish whether one is male, or female, or other, without any scientific (i.e biological) supervenience is absurd.  Since sex supervenes on the empirical state of one’s somatic cells, it successfully supervenes on a grounded, quantifiable property. Thus, one can coherently make the distinction of “male” or “female” using the “sex” field.
 
 
1.3   Logical Formulation
P1: X supervenes a grounded A-Property                               
P2: This A-Property is either biological or cultural and social   
P3: it is a biological factor                                                                           
C1: X does not supervene on cultural and social factors          
P4: If C1 then “gender” is incoherent                                       
C2: Gender is incoherent                                                          
(let X be the distinction between male and female)

 
1.3 Premise One
This ought to be true per the resolution; in order to coherently distinguish one identity from the other, there ought to be an objective measure to quantify them. Thus, it must supervene on an objective fact that is grounded in the physical world. 
 
1.3 Premise two
Per the definitions provided, this is the only possible trichotomy.
 
1.3 Premise Three
As aforementioned, cultural and social factors do not supervene on anything empirical, thus “male”, “female”, or “other” cannot be coherently assigned to anyone. 
 
1.3 Premise Four
If “gender” entails absurdities in providing coherent distinctions between “male”, “female” and “other” its purpose is unjustified; especially in light that the “sex” field can.
 
1.3 C1 & C2
Thus follow logically from the premises. 
 
 
A2. Other examples are absurd

Since “gender” has no scientific underpinning, I will show that other examples of subjective notions of objective properties are nonsensical.  Take date of birth (DoB) for instance; we all have an objective date of birth, thus we all have an objective age. Despite the fact that there are subjective qualities inherently tied with age (e.g maturity) one cannot “identify” as any other age apart from their actual age. For example, to equate this to gender, all one would need to do is create a new “subjective notion” that takes “social and cultural” factors into account and ascribe it a name, e.g “aje” (I have just made this word up). “Aje” dissimilar to “age”, takes into account other pseudo-scientific qualities such as subjective social and cultural factors. For example, one can “identify” as 35 years old, because their interests and personality closely aligns to 80s culture. A subjectively mature 12 year old, could have the “aje” of 18 years old, because they might be as mature as an 18 year old. Clearly, just because I arbitrarily make up a new word and included inherent social and cultural factors does not mean it has any meaningful value. For the same reason it would be absurd for me to affirm the veracity of “aje” over “age”, it is likewise absurd for me to argue “gender” over “sex”. 
 
A3. Data Consistency

If whether I am “male”, “female” or “other” depended on social and cultural factors, then who is to say that my gender doesn’t change consistently? What would stop me from being a male one minute, but a female the next? This would imply people have the option to often change their gender on DART. 
 
3.1 Inaccurate Demographical Analysis
If this were the case, DART would be unable to create an “accurate” depiction of their user demographic; as this statistic would be constantly changing. Moreover, DART would be unable to design their website based on this user demographic, because the sexual dimorphic distinction would be lost as biological males can identify as women and vice versa. It would be more lucrative for DART to provoke the “sex” field as it provides absolute data to analyse. They would know what demographic they are appealing to; and how to adjust their website accordingly to appeal to that demographic; whether it be UI design, or even advertising.  With the “gender” field such data would be inconsistent, forever changing and misrepresenting the true user demographic of the site. 
 
== Rebuttals == 

==      Neg      ==

C1. More Choices
Con opines that the "gender" doesn't "prevent people from expressing who they are". "Sex" is not 'expressive'; I have demonstrated that the coherence of the field as a whole is contingent upon biological inference. If one would like to express themselves they always have their bio as a medium.

C2. Unnecessary
Con argues that the change is unneeded because people tend not to check gender anyway. Prima facie this would mean that the field shouldn't exist at all. If something is unneeded then why is it even there? DA would be better inclined to remove the field as a whole to free up storage space. Regardless, this claim could be extended to any of the questions on the profile page; so are all the fields unnecessary and if so why wouldn't it be better to remove them all as a whole to free storage space?

Moreover, Con asserts it would be a "waste of time" to change the field anyway. However, whether or not this website is hard coded or not it is very easy to change the name of a field; be it via HTML or something like wordpress. In HTML all one needs to do is use CTRL F to find the element ID and change the name of the field from "gender" to "sex" and remove the "other" option. Indeed, it is even easier in something like wordpress; it is a couple of clicks away. I would happily do this if given the source code. Furthermore,  it is a web developer's onus to consider the coherence of the features on their site.






Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
Con
#4
== Rebuttals == 

A1. Sex is rooted in biology whereas gender is not

My argument is against this is that no one cares, or rather, the layman will not care and this fact does not benefit any user of the website. What does "sex" tell another user? That one has certain genitalia? What else? What purpose does knowing one's genitalia serve? The answer is none. And what advantage does sex being rooted in biology have for DART? That was not elaborated on by my opponent, and no reason was given as to why any person should care whether the "gender" field is rooted in biology or not.

Everything else in this section was related to above. I would only ask to challenge one more thing.

1.3   Logical Formulation
P1: X supervenes a grounded A-Property                               
P2: This A-Property is either biological or cultural and social   
P3: it is a biological factor                                                                           
C1: X does not supervene on cultural and social factors          
P4: If C1 then “gender” is incoherent                                       
C2: Gender is incoherent                                                          
(let X be the distinction between male and female)
Incoherent: expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.

This is what my opponent says to back up his claim: "If 'gender' entails absurdities in providing coherent distinctions between 'male', 'female' and 'other' its purpose is unjustified; especially in light that the 'sex' field can."

Firstly, my opponent has not determined that gender entails absurdities anywhere in his argument. Yes, it uses social and cultural factors, which are subjective, but on what standard does that make them absurd? Winners of contests are determined by judges' subjective opinion, but the eventual result isn't absurd because of that. One person's attractiveness to another is subjective and certainly not the same between multiple people, but that doesn't make said attractiveness absurd. Likewise, just because gender is based off of social and cultural factors, which are subjective, does not mean that gender is therefore absurd. Because of that, it has not been determined that gender is incoherent.

My opponent says: "...I argue that “gender” is irreducible to physical fact."

My response would be, why must it be reducible to physical fact? The eventual votes on this debate, while based on what we said, are still subject to the judges' subjective opinions, so does that make the votes on DART absurd? Of course not! Not everything must be reducible to physical fact. Allow elaborate on something my opponent said in response to me.

"If one would like to express themselves they always have their bio as a medium."

But what they say in their bio is based purely on their subjective opinion, so doesn't that mean, by my opponent's logic, that it is irreducible to physical fact and therefore is incoherent?

-- Rebuttal Conclusion --

All that we can draw from this part of my opponent's argument is that "sex" is rooted in biology and science. However, no elaboration was given as to how that affects and/or benefits DART in any way, shape, or form, and therefore should not be considered a reason to change the "gender" field.

A2. Other examples are absurd

My opponent looks at age and how one cannot "identify" as an age other than how old one really is. However, what my opponent neatly ignores is that age is directly tied to mental development and growth, which is why one cannot identify as an age other than what one is. Sex, while it does affect one, has more to do with one's wants and desires more than anything else, which are subjective in the first place.

Secondly, gender and sex are different for a reason. Specifically, gender deals with the societal and cultural part of sex and the wants that a certain demographic typically has. Sex does not do that and does not have the same power. So, allowing one to choose who they identify with more tells more information to other people than simply essentially saying what one's genitalia is.

A3. Data Consistency

If whether I am “male”, “female” or “other” depended on social and cultural factors, then who is to say that my gender doesn’t change consistently?
My opponent inaccurately claims that one's gender, based on its reliance on social and cultural factors, would change consistently as social and cultural factors themselves change. The problem with this argument is that it ignores that society is not the final determinant of the gender; the person who is in question is. So, if a person would want their gender to change consistently, that is their choice. Besides that, removing the "other" option and changing "gender" to "sex" would not stop anyone from flip-flopping between "male" and female" as they choose!

Inaccurate Data Analysis

People are allowed to change the gender field anyway, so this argument is non-unique because, even without the "other" field, anybody could still choose between "male" and "female" at their discretion. My opponent tries to argue that changing the name "gender" to "sex" would prevent such behavior, but as the layman would not recognize any distinction between the two words, such behavior would continue unhindered. Thus, changing the "gender" field to say "sex" would not reduce the effect described by my opponent.


-- Rebuttal Conclusion --

Because changing the "gender" field to say "sex" and removing the "other" option will do nothing to modify the effect described by my opponent, this should not be considered a reason by voters to change the field.
Round 3
semperfortis's avatar
semperfortis
Pro
#5
Thank you for your response, Speedrace. 

== Aff == 
 
A1. Sex is rooted in biology whereas gender is not

“no-one cares”
Con contends that no-one actually cares about one’s sex, it has no purpose and there is no advantage for changing “gender” to “sex” on DART.
Firstly, if no-one cares about sex then I can argue that no-one cares about one’s gender or any question on DART. I must remind Con that his burden of proof lies within the advocation of the “gender” field -- positing something that can be retaliated against the “gender” field (that no-one cares about it) or any other field on the website doesn’t affirm your position over mine.
 
Con asks:

“what does sex tell you about another user?”

Likewise, this can be transferred to “gender”; what does it tell you about another user? A transgender telling me they are a man, tells me no more about them than a man does telling me he’s a man.  Moreover, I provided that DART could use the “sex” field to allow them to create an accurate depiction of their user demographic.
Furthermore, Con opines it provides no “advantage”. However, I extensively argued that the “sex” field is the only coherent way to align with either male or female.
 


Incoherence of the Field
Con asserts I haven’t demonstrated the “gender” field’s internal inconsistency. He argues that a notion based from social and cultural factors does not entail absurdities, as we have judges who subjectively vote on debates and people who say one is “attractive” ultimately reduces to subjective perspective.
 
Gender is irreducible and is thus incoherent
I will try and explain this as clearly and thoroughly as possible.  In science, things are reducible. For instance, take a human being -- what can you objectively say about this person? Let’s say they are 7ft tall, are they considered tall? To the average human they are certainly tall, but to a tree they are considerably small. This is an example of a relative value – relative to the average human, they are tall, but to other macroscopic entities they are small.  This is coherent, because I can objectively measure   the height of the human, the tree and calculate the height of the average human and compare them. Thus, I can coherently  come to these conclusions. What about the biological sex of the person? I can objectively determine their sex by checking if their somatic cells possess a XY or XX genotype. I can coherently make these conclusions because they are reducible to measurable facts about the physical world; height is *reducible* to the measurement I find with my ruler and biological sex is *reducible* to the nature of one’s somatic cells. What can I not objectively say about them? Are they funny? They might be funny to me, but not funny to other people. This is subjective and I cannot physically measure one’s humour. Thus, to say one is objectively “not funny” or “funny” is ultimately incoherent, because I cannot determine the value of “funny”!  This being said, social and cultural factors cannot be measured, so to say one is “male”, but not “female”, is erroneous without it being reducible to biological inference.  Thus:

P1: One cannot “be” something without it being reducible
P2:There exists no genders that are reducible
C: There exists no genders that one can be
*If no-one can coherently be any gender Con’s onus is impossible to fulfil.*
 
Gender is unquantifiable and no-one could ever agree on what constitutes each individual gender
Furthermore, this is why saying one is “male”, but not “female” or “other” using something that isn’t reducible to physical fact (i.e social and cultural factors) entails absurdities. What would make someone 100% male/female or… other? Or 50% male/ 50% female? If a man likes the colour pink would that make him 2% more female? But what if he enjoys hunting, does that make him 5% more male? Or how would that value relate to him liking pink? Or who is to objectively say that those things are innately masculine or feminine anyway? Or is it just base intuition that one subjectively feels they are male or female or more female than male etc.? But that alludes to the question what is it like to “feel male”? What is “being a male” outside of biological sex? Because many people disagree on what this is; some people feel men ought to be stoic and gallant, but many people also think a true man is someone who shows their emotions. If no-one can agree on objective criteria to what constitutes a gender and makes it distinct from another, there is no possible way to coherently align with any one of them.  Moreover, what would entail “other”? What social and cultural factor entails not male nor female? This is also something Con has to justify.
 
Con’s examples of accepted subjective notions
Con’s examples of subjective notions, e.g judging panels and attraction only extend the problems faced with choosing “gender” over “sex”.  I admit, we do use judges to determine winners all the time, but to say this as if they determined the winner with 100% veracity is absurd. Judges constantly disagreed with (e.g GGG vs Canelo, Cruz vs Dillashaw, GSP vs Hendricks and recently Jones vs Santos). This is the problem with judging, even when they use *agreed upon* criteria!  If we had an *objective* way to finding a winner, we would certainly not use judging systems; so when faced with the option of having an objective distinction using the “sex” field, why would we ever want to use “gender” instead?
 
Bio
Con writes:

 “But what they say in their bio is based purely on their subjective opinion, so doesn't that mean, by my opponent's logic, that it is irreducible to physical fact and therefore is incoherent?”

This is a misinterpretation; it is making inferences from subjectivity that are contradictory. For example one saying “I dislike the movie Sharknado” in their bio would not be absurd, as what they like is subjective. However, to say that Sharknado is objectively bad is absurd, because it is subjective.  

If one were to select “female” it would logically imply not “male” and “not other”. In logical format it would read:

p => (¬q^¬r)

For this to be sound, Con is behoved in explaining definitively why p is true, but q and r are false. To which I have thoroughly conveyed only reducible factors can achieve.
 
Subjectivity vs Objectivity
Con could argue that all of this doesn’t matter; one simply “feels” that they are a specific gender and who is to tell them otherwise?  However, herein lies the contradiction. Something subjective *cannot* be reduced to something objective by definition.  To say you “feel” male, where male is an objective property is contradictory. To say you “feel” beautiful is coherent as “beauty” is a subjective property. I could say that “I feel” like a toaster oven, but it wouldn’t have any logical implication or meaning. It is true that males “tend” to do specific activities and have different interests. This is sexual dimorphism; however, a woman who likes guns wouldn’t make them any less female. It would be more accurate to say that they are a woman who likes activities and interests that many men like. It would be erroneous to say that they are a man or “more of” one because of this.


 
A2. Other Examples are Absurd

Con opines:

“my opponent neatly ignores is that age is directly tied to mental development and growth, which is why one cannot identify as an age other than what one is”

I actually mentioned “maturity” in my opening round which would be a corollary of development and growth. However, this statement literally undermines Con’s rebuttal. Con says I cannot identify as an age other than what I am, because it is tied to “mental development and growth” (i.e *biological factors*). Likewise, I cannot identify as a sex other than what I am, because sex is tied with the nature of one’s somatic cells (i.e *biological factors*).
Why is it I cannot use social and cultural factors when determining my age, but I can when determining my gender?
 
Moreover, Con asserts:

“Secondly, gender and sex are different for a reason. Specifically, gender deals with the societal and cultural part of sex and the wants that a certain demographic typically has. Sex does not do that and does not have the same power. So, allowing one to choose who they identify with more tells more information to other people than simply essentially saying what one's genitalia is.”

Indeed, “aje” and “age” are different for a reason. Specifically, “aje” deals with the societal and cultural part of age that a certain demographic typically has. “Age” does not do that and does not have the same power. So, allowing one to choose an age they identify with more tells more information to other people than simply saying what one’s stage of development is. Here, it can be seen that replacing gender with my “aje” field, it shows Con’s equivocation. Con dismisses the veracity of the “aje” field, but uses the same logic to affirm gender.
 


A3. Data Consistency

Con contends:

“The problem with this argument is that it ignores that society is not the final determinant of the gender; the person who is in question is. So, if a person would want their gender to change consistently, that is their choice”

If gender is contingent upon socio-cultural factors which are inconsistent would deductively entail that people’s gender are inconsistent. Social and cultural factors are very broad, ranging from status, interests, current media trends to anything imaginable. All of which change consistently. One cannot deductively tie these factors to gender and say that one’s gender doesn’t change when the factors resulting in their gender constantly change.
 

Moreover, Con states:

“Besides that, removing the "other" option and changing "gender" to "sex" would not stop anyone from flip-flopping between "male" and female" as they choose!”

People can lie about their sex, but they can also lie about their age, gender, political ideology, income etc. Again, this is not specific to the sex field. Moreover, I see a lack of motivation to why someone would feel inclined to lie about their sex and equivocate frequently.
 

Inaccurate Data Analysis
Con protests that people have the option to change their gender anyway and implementing the sex field wouldn’t rectify this. However, if you remove the social and cultural factors people have far less motive to change their sex; if so they would be lying about their real sex. Gender would provide many people validly changing their gender consistently, coupled with the fact that *some* people would lie about it. Regardless, the sex field would provide more accurate data analysis than gender for this reason.


 
Conclusion
I have shown that the “sex” field remains to be the only field that can *coherently* make distinctions between “male” and “female”. I have shown that it is impossible for there to be any tenable method for one to assign themselves to a “gender”, because it is irreducible to physical fact. Con dismisses the “aje” field but uses the same logic to affirm “gender”. Lastly, I have defended that sex remains the more viable field in producing accurate data analysis. Thus, the resolution is upheld.
 
Note: I must remind Con that he ought to defend the coherence of the “gender” field. For one to say they are “X” but not “Y”, there must be a method to show why one is that but not the other. Moreover, Con ought to defend how “other” is a coherent gender and what would constitute as “other”. For example, why is “male” a valid gender, but “dishwasher” is not?
 
Over to Con.
 
 
 
 
 
 




Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
Con
#6
Defense

C1. More Choices

Pro seems to miss the entire point of my argument. In saying that the "gender" field allows DART users to have more choices, I am then saying that such an advantage trumps "biological inference" in the "sex" field. This is because being able to determine something about a DART user's personality helps another such user much more than knowing what genitalia said DART user has.

And allow me to preemptively defend against what my opponent will in the following round. He will say that there is no objective way to measure what traits belong to males over females and to females over males. My response is that such a method need not be objective. The judges looking at this very debate, and at every debate on this website will inevitably have some part of their subjective opinions seep into their votes. If not, every vote for each debate would be exactly the same. In fact, if the method was objective, I likely could code a computer program to figure out who the winner would eventually be! My point is that the method for which traits belong to which gender not being able to be pinned down by science is by no means an indication that such a method does not exist. By that logic, there is no method by which judges on this website can vote on debates.

The underlying assumption in my opponent's argument seems to be that, if one choice is based purely on science and fact, it must, therefore, trump all other options. This completely ignores whether said choice has any practical use for those making that choice! Just because the "sex" field is based in biology doesn't mean that it is therefore better than the "gender" field. The "gender" field, with more real-world uses that actually benefit DART users, is the clear choice.

If one would like to express themselves they always have their bio as a medium.
But, according to my opponent's logic, since such an expression cannot be reduced to physical fact, does that not then make it obsolete? And then doesn't that necessarily make all forms of human expression obsolete, since all of it is subjective? So my opponent is essentially arguing that we throw away the very thing that makes us human for robotic notions and rigid corners and should eventually reduce life to a series of 0's and 1's.

Now, that is obviously a slippery slope used for dramatic effect, but you understand my point. Arguing against something simply because it cannot be determined by a computer is not a reason to dismiss it.

C2. Unnecessary

Con argues that the change is unneeded because people tend not to check gender anyway. Prima facie this would mean that the field shouldn't exist at all. DA would be better inclined to remove the field as a whole to free up storage space. Regardless, this claim could be extended to any of the questions on the profile page; so are all the fields unnecessary and if so why wouldn't it be better to remove them all as a whole to free storage space?
Don't be distracted by my opponent's use of red herring. Remember what we are debating here. The question is, should the "gender" field be changed to say "sex" instead? We are not debating whether the fields should be removed or not, so let's focus here. If the change does nothing, either because the lay man will recognize no difference between the two (as I have already argued), or simply because no one is checking the field, that means that doing nothing (AKA leaving the field as is, which is my position), is inherently a better choice because the effort to make the change will be wasted. Whether removing the fields or other related fields altogether or not is a completely different question for another debate.

Pro then argues that the effort to change the box is minuscule. However, minuscule or not, if that effort is wasted in the end, it is not logical to take that action when doing nothing would produce the exact same result.

Last Note

I would like to address something that my opponent said in the last round:

 I must remind Con that he ought to defend the coherence of the “gender” field.
Such a responsibility on my part was not mentioned anywhere in the debate description nor in the debate title. In order for me to win, I do NOT have to prove that the "gender" field is coherent. I must simply prove that the "gender" field should NOT be changed to a "sex" field. Whether I do that through proving the coherence of the "gender" field over the "sex" field or not is completely up to me. Changing the debate rules/responsibilities in the middle of the round is dirty and dishonest debating, and certainly not a trick that I will fall for.

Moreover, Con ought to defend how “other” is a coherent gender and what would constitute as “other”. For example, why is “male” a valid gender, but “dishwasher” is not?
Again, this is simply not true, as such a responsibility was not mentioned in the debate description nor the debate title.
Round 4
semperfortis's avatar
semperfortis
Pro
#7
Burden of Proof
It is prudent to highlight that the coherence of the “gender” field is a part of Con’s burden of proof, because if it were incoherent, there is nothing Con would be conceivably arguing for. In the debate description, the burden of proof is shared and described as the following:

“For Pro to fulfill their BoP they must reasonably assert why this field should be replaced with a “sex” field with “male” and “female” as its only options. As Con, they ought to argue why the current gender field, with its current options ought not to be replaced by a sex field. Moreover, it is to be assumed that there can only exist either the sex field or the gender field; hence it should be argued why one should take precedence over the other.”

Quite simply, if the concept of “gender” is incoherent, you cannot argue any case for it.  For example, arguing any case for a “squared circle” is a priori nonsensical, because a “squared circle” as a concept is unfathomable because it’s nature and essence doesn’t make sense! I have extensively professed why the field is incoherent as a person cannot “be” one gender over another without it being reducible to objective fact. Otherwise, it would refute the rules of inference (i.e p => (¬q ^ ¬r)) and the law of non-contradiction.

Not only is it the field as a whole that Con must advocate, but “its current options” i.e “male”, “female” and “other”. If any one of these attributes are incoherent the entire field is incoherent. Again, I have extensively suggested that Con has not demonstrated the coherence of “other”, or how there can even exist genders that are not “male” or “female”. In fact, the fact that the “other” option exists contradicts the definition of gender (“either of the two sexes (male or female), especially with reference to social and cultural factors”). The gender field is teeming with logical fallacies.




C1. More Choices

Con effectively states that “more choices” supersedes logical consistency, because it helps users “find out more about another’s personality”. However, I have shown that one’s subjective notion of what constitutes a “male” or a “female” is unagreeable. For instance, if I were to observe someone’s profile and see that they are a “male”, I would then assume that their personality is that of which I consider male; not what *they* consider male.  However, that person’s conception of what is manly could be completely different to mine because it is not objective.  Furthermore, this logic would result in me identifying others as what I consider “male” to be.  Con, could consider himself a “male” but I could consider him to be “female” or “other” and since it’s subjective neither of us would be wrong! Moreover, what could “other” possibly tell me about another person - that their personality is neither “male” nor “female”? What would that even mean? Clearly, the gender field and its multiplicity of options does not tell me very much at all about another person, in fact it would mislead me because we cannot agree on what constitutes “male”, from “female”, from “other” as there is no objective means to compare them.
 
Judges
It is true and I have admitted that judging is subjective, but this only shows the irrationality of using something subjective over something objective.
If we could find out the winner of a debate with 100% accuracy we would not have a judging system.  Judges disagree with other judges, but both are right? If a voter meets the voting criteria and votes Pro and another votes Con, both are “equally correct” yet posit different conclusions. This is in direct violation of the law of non-contradiction (LEM) [1]. However, we are roped in to having to judge debates this way, because there doesn’t exist a method that can determine the winner of a debate with 100% accuracy. However, we can determine one’s sex with 100% accuracy, so this is a false analogy.
 
Bio
I have already addressed my contentions to this argument in my previous round and was dropped by Con.  However, to reiterate, Con contends that by my logic, the concept of a bio would likewise be absurd, because it isn’t reducible to anything objective.

Please note that something irreducible to something objective is not a contradiction. However, something that is irreducible to something objective and makes deductive inferences is contradictory [2]. For example, because my subjective opinion perceives a comedian as being funny it does not entail that comedian is objectively funny. Otherwise, would violate the law of non-contradiction.  

For instance, observe the “subjective” proposition (irreducible to objective fact) “I feel the Mona Lisa is beautiful”. Now observe the following argument:
Let A be the first principle of the law of excluded middle:

A: “The Mona Lisa is either a beautiful painting, or not” (tautologically ¬(p^¬p))
P1: Entity x1, “feels the Mona Lisa is beautiful”
P2: If P1, the Mona Lisa is beautiful (making inferences from subjectivity)
C1: The Mona Lisa is beautiful
P3: Entity x2, “feels the Mona Lisa is not beautiful”
P4: If P3, the Mona Lisa is not beautiful (making inferences from subjectivity)
C2:The Mona Lisa is not beautiful
*C1 & C2 entails a contradiction (P2 & P4 Law of Excluded Middle)*

This argument fails, because the Mona Lisa cannot objectively be both beautiful and not beautiful; as such contravenes first principles.
The concept of “gender” commits the same fallacy because what constitutes an individual gender (i.e “male” but not “female”) is resulted from inference from subjectivity! To say I am “male” infers that I am “not female”, but inferring such without something objective results in the direct violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Here it can be seen, one can have a subjective opinion of something, but to use that opinion to make inferences violates first principles. According to Aristotle, the law of non-contradiction  is a principle that is “necessary for anyone who knows any of the things that are” [1]. Clearly, “gender” cannot be known and ergo cannot be argued for.
 

 
C2. Unnecessary

In light of the burden of proof that Con and I both share, an argument that equally impacts both of our positions does not “show why one field should take precedence over the other” and is thus a red-herring.  If both fields are unnecessary then how does that infer that the gender field should be left unchanged? Surely, it would entail that both the “sex” and the “gender” field shouldn’t exist?
 


==  Aff  ==

A1. Sex is Rooted in Biology Whereas Gender is Not

Con concedes this but argues its relevance.  Why is it that because “sex” is rooted in biology means that the field should be changed? Why is it that because “gender is subjective” facilitates change?

As aforementioned, one cannot talk meaningfully about an incoherent concept; from the principle of explosion “anything follows from a contradiction”. Thus, it is impossible for Con to make an argument why “gender” [an incoherent concept] “should take precedence” [burden of proof] over the “sex” field.
Again, as aforementioned, the fields allow the user to choose one option, be it “male”, “female” or “other”. To choose one, infers the negative of the other two. The only field that coherently allows such without violating the law of non-contradiction is the “sex” field. Thus, it is the only option that is able to fulfil the field’s purpose in a coherent manor.


 
A2. Other Examples are Absurd

My subjectively constructed “aje” field is interchangeable with the “gender” field, yet Con concedes that the “aje” field is an absurd concept, thus entailing the absurdity of the “gender” field. I can’t defend this argument much further because it wasn’t included in Con’s last round.
 


A3. Data Consistency
Likewise, this argument was not included in Con’s last round, so I extend.  I am unsure whether this is because Con drops these arguments, or whether it is because he did not realise round 3 is “defence/rebuttals”. If he addresses them this round, would mean that I have had one less round to defend these arguments. 
 
 
 
Closing Sentiments
Overall, it can be seen that the “sex” field actually creates coherent distinctions between “male” and “female” and provides DA with consistent and largely reliable data to analyse.  This competes relative to the “gender” field that bristles with many logical fallacies. The “gender” field provides options that cannot be agreed upon, cannot coherently make a distinction from its options (where it having the "other" option violates the definition of gender), violates the law of non-contradiction, cannot provide what constitutes what “male”, “female” or “other” is in any meaningful way and cannot even be discussed in any rational manor, because the concept and very essence of it is incoherent. Moreover, it doesn’t convey anything about one’s personality, because people’s interpretation of the options are different – thus misleading many users and lastly gives DA ambiguous data to analyse. For these reasons, it is apparent that the “sex” field should take precedence and thus should be changed.

Many thanks to Speedrace for a great debate. Good luck!
 
 
References
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/#ThreVersPrinNonCont
[2] https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html
 
 
 

Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
Con
#8
Forfeited