Disclaimer: I do not believe there is a superior gender or that transgenderism is an abomination. I am left-wing and pro-LGBTQ as well as an ardent feminist who wanted Elizabeth Warren to be president and was overjoyed at Kamala Harris being announced as Vice President on Biden's ticket. Women are extremely important to a society, they are the gel that holds it together and femininity is severely important for us to embrace and love as masculinity will have us hurting each other brutally and counter-productively if we keep at it. The Right-wing ethos is the most masculine one, this is what I am going to begin to discuss later on in this debate, for this Round it's not entirely necessary but know that I do not believe in any way that women or trans people are inferior. We all play our role, it's not transphobic or sexist to know what the roles and tendencies are as long as you respect that anomalies and outliers are real and should be allowed to be themselves.
Digital vs Binary, Analogue vs Tertiary+
Digital vs Analogue is the debate that Pro wants to have, which is of course what a lot of gender-focused psychiatrists, political activists and lawyers have used to justify gender-variation be legally recognised and accepted. I am going to explain something that will seem like a semantic play but what is important to observe is how I will expose Pro as the one who is playing semantics instead.
Pro wants Con to admit that masculinity vs femininity is an analog(ue) scale, wherein there are multiple values of any variation that one can land on, similar to temperature, brightness so on and so forth. This is of course fair enough to say, since the primary opponent-type of people who believe gender isn't binary are transphobes who refuse to accept that the degree to which one is psychologically wired in the brain and/or built hormonally in Testosterone/Androgen vs ostrogen is not solely attributed to their genitalia, merely correlated with it. I am not here as a transphobe, I am here as someone who took this debate playing devil's advocate to a degree who also thinks there's a genuine case to be made that gender is analogue yet binary.
When you have a temperature, brightness or gender-severity measuring scale, it isn't going to be digital, where one is either 'male' or 'female' in a flat-out sense, instead, there will be binary poles (hot vs cold, bright vs dark, masculine vs feminine) that are binary and similar even to yang vs yin but are indeed scaled. Just as you will be able to render 'lukewarm', 'cool', 'fairly hot', 'partially bright', 'somewhat dark' in the said scales of temperature and brightness, you also can get gender-fluid variations of how severely masculine vs feminine one is. Therefore, it follows that not everyone will be simply 'extremely masculine' or 'extremely feminine' in their result, which would be what a typical person who assumed gender is binary portrays men vs women as.
I am not here in the slightest to downgrade or disqualify how hard the struggle is for extremely masculine sex-based-women or extremely feminine sex-based-men. Their life is tough and society is cruel and twisted in how it has gone about bullying them into conformity in the past. In contrast, I am here to show compassion to transgender people, since it was because gender is binary that they had to transition in order to truly express to society 'I am a masculine being that was born with XX chromosomes' or vice versa.
These people should be legally allowed to transition, since it makes sense that transitioning helps them truly express and experience their bodies in the way that better matches with their tendencies and feelings.
There is no third gender, it is semantic trickery (even by LGBTQ groups to themselves) to say that there are infinite genders. Instead there are 2 gender-poles of masculinity and femininity towards which people are not always severely to one end of the spectrum. There's no third-end of the spectrum, the middle isn't proof of a tertiary direction in which one's gender-balance can go. Gender-fluid people are medium in how masculine vs feminine they are and that's completely natural variation, I am not arguing that it's an abomination or anything.
Masculinity vs Feminity and the problem with 'gender' being based on societal norms (for Pro)
Pro defined gender in a way that many pro-LGBTQ people do (I am one of them). The basis on which gender is defined is the attributes which are associated with 'men' and 'women', not just their birth-sex. However, I don't think anyone who is pro-LGBTQ will outright deny that one's birth-sex is part of the 'attributes associated with the gender' and this is where definitions get murky and suddenly the basis on which gender is determined backfires on Pro.
We have society defining masculinity vs femininity as the lines along which male vs female is expressed in their particular culture. So, I will agree with Pro that it's somewhat arbitrary when a colour like blue is associated with males and a colour like pink is associated with females. That surely isn't entirely concrete in basis and that split is rooted merely in the fact that other feminine clothes, styles and tendency to enjoy the colour are linked to pink while the opposite proved true for males at some point in such a culture's history. While that is arbitrary and is based on the non-arbitrary feminine things being linked to pink in the society while the male ones were to blue, the point I am making is that the 'split' and the fact that when someone wants to express themselves as a very masculine being, they may want hormone therapy, surgery and to mimic the colours, styles and habits of the other/opposite/complimentary gender to which they were assigned at birth based on their sex being linked to it, that person is basing their transition on the fact that gender is binary.
That's right, what I am saying is that transgenderism, when it is the physically-altering hormone therapy and/or surgery/ies that alter one's physically-experienced and expressed gender, is entirely based on the fact that one is wanting to change to the other binary gender because they feel that their place on the gender spectrum, between the binary poles of masculine vs feminine, is so significantly towards the other one than the one that's associated with their birth-sex that the transition is necessary for them to feel fully comfortable in their identity as a person of the other, new gender.
So, while a lot about gender is arbitrary (because the fact that masculine beings had short head hair whereas everywhere else on the body hairiness is considered masculine, is just one of many examples of society attributing things rather arbitrarily), we cannot simply deny that masculinity vs femininity is always the basis on which the split occurs and I will now explain why the core fundamentals along which gender is split is not arbitrary, but based in hormones and brain-wiring.
Before going into the science, I want to look at any species that isn't human to understand what masculine vs feminine behaviour is when we take 'societal norms' out of the hunan-only picture.
There are
exceptions to every rule, of course. Male seahorses
get pregnant. Female spotted hyenas dominate males and sport a
pseudo-penis (enlarged clitoris) that is capable of erection and can be as much as 90 percent the size of a male’s penis. As matriarchal as spotted hyena society is, it doesn’t quite reach the level of the northern jacana, a wading bird species whose common territory ranges from Panama to Mexico. Female northern jacanas patrol a territory full of males and fight off intruding females; the smaller males engage in less territorial behavior than females, instead spending that time caring for a nest full of the resident female’s eggs.
Turning to our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, we see additional illustrative examples of the natural variation that exists in sex-correlated behavior. Although the two species are
99.6 percent genetically identical (and equidistant from humans), they are
quite different. In general, adult male chimpanzees, like males of many species, are aggressive, domineering, and status-seeking. Much of their time is spent either patrolling territorial boundaries to deter or
even kill members of other communities, or
vying for social power within their own group. Adult females are generally less political and less violent—they have other priorities, like caring for offspring—but they can still influence the state of social affairs by breaking up male fights or leading rival males to reconcile. After all, as is the case in many species, much of what males stand to gain from high status is access to mating opportunities with females.
It’s been said that if chimpanzees are from Mars, then bonobos are from Venus. Bonobo society is generally
female-dominated. Unlike female chimpanzees who mostly, though not always, keep their noses out of politics, female bonobos reign by forming male-dominating coalitions. They bond partly through genito-genital rubbing (it is what it sounds like), forming stronger relationships than female chimps typically have with one another. As for male bonobos, they are much less violent on average than male chimps. Unlike with chimpanzees, lethal aggression has never formally been observed in bonobos (though there has been
one suspected instance); bonobos are more likely to
share food (and maybe sex) with a stranger than to fight.
What this pro-trans-source article is admitting is that masculinity and femininity is there in all species and even societies of non-human animals. It is true that exceptions and variations occur and I am not here to deny that, instead I am here to note that masculinity itself is falsely perceived to be based on arbitrary societal norms, instead those societal norms that can indeed be arbitrary were linked to non-arbitrary splits between a dynamic that is there in all high-functioning species (especially primates and mammals) that have males and females.
Bonobo males are less masculine than chimpanzee males, by and large, while bonobo females are much more feminine than chimpanzee females. This is not denying the binary elements of femininity, instead it's understanding that the norms can shift. Think of it also like how in one country the 'centre' between left-wing and right-wing can be much more left or right vs another country's centre.
The ideas of masculinity and femininity are not actually artbirary and societal, only specific traits associated with them can be. Testosterone (based on the chemical androgen) and oestrogen are a hormonal dichotomy that indeed is a binary rivalry, even though humans have both (especially women, they have testosterone more than men have oestrogen, this is because humans in general are a more masculine species than most).
I am going to explain something that is just as true in a matriarchy as a patriarchy as an egalitarian society, however the degree to which the truth is expressed is often only truest and most blatant in a patriarchal one.
Instead of directly quoting a source, I'll cut this down to self-written bullet points and if Pro wishes to proves me wrong with my own sources, he is welcome to (I say 'he' as Pro identifies as male on his profile at present).
I am going to lay out clear-cut lines along which the scale of masculinity vs femininity is applied. This goes much deeper than the societal norms that can at times be arbitarily associated with the genders.
I will quote one thing though:
The fears are not always groundless. Side-effects can also include fatigue and weight gain. But Ryan has witnessed positives, too. As professor of medicine and urology at the University of California, he has noticed that the medical students who have passed through his clinic in the 18 years that he has been treating prostate cancer invariably comment: “Dr Ryan, your patients are so nice.” He replies, jokingly: “It’s because they don’t have any testosterone. They can’t be mean.”
A quip about prostate cancer patients. This is from the last link out of those listed above.
I now will list the differences between masculinity and femininity and link them to tesosterone vs oestrogen.
- Aggression without provocation is extremely masculine, whereas aggression solely based on provocation, especially when done without hesitation or forethought, is feminine. This is because while oestrogen makes one's baseline more passive, their sensivitiy to provocation, pain and other such stimuli is increased. Tesosterone makes one aggressive regardless of outside stimuli, masculine beings are prone to change their environment and be the dominant 'gamechangers' in any competitive scenario whereas feminine beings are those that adapt to the masculine beings fastest as they're the most sensitive to the stimuli. This dichotomy is very complimentary even as without feminine beings, masculine beings will hurt each other too severely and readily without anyone to passionately defend them and maintain peace.
- Being very aware of physical surroundings in terms of space and calculations is masculine whereas being very aware of emotional surroundings and the weather based on psychological perkiness to anguish vs pleasure in others and sensory alertness to surrounding temperature and other such variations is feminine.
- Being open to persuasion and negotiating in a very win-win manner, if not even one where one is willing to lose out in the short-term, is feminine. Being extremely self-centred and wanting immediate gains is a masculine behaviour. In human beings this dichotomy has been over-amplified by societal norms in the past, the split is very real however it's just that because masculine women were suppressed in the past and feminine men were teased and humiliatied for being weak, this split is disregarded as true and instead as arbitrary (it's not though and hormones play a bigger role in this one than brain chemistry itself).
- Wanting to be extremely good at one or two things is masculine, wanting to be bad at very little and a 'jack of all trades' is feminine. Indeed, the term 'jack of all trades' is based on sexist ideas from older societies where only males were able to be experienced in any line of work. Women are more balanced in their skillsets, while men are more pushed towards specialisation, this is both due to the hormones and the brain wiring. This is part of the reason why, despite actual laws and opportunities being equal, males are still dominating all fields of work while finally a few masculine females are being allowed to excel and I am happy for that. Masculine beings want to push boundaries, change norms and fight, feminine beings want to avoid the 'bad boundary' of any particular lacking skillset and aim to be all-rounded in both temperament and expertise.
- Sadism is masculine but masochism is not exactly feminine. Masculine beings embrace pain itself a lot more readily than feminine beings do, both in terms of inflicting it and being willing to receive it. This is proven in all species, especially mammalian ones. This is not aggression, I am speaking of enjoying pain and play-fighting tendencies. Spiders and insects often have females that are more aggressive in actions but the males still are proven to relish in the aggression more. The concept of enjoying pain, especially inflicting it, is something that when it's seen in females is because they are masculine females who are outliers of their gender, towards 'masculine' in the spectrum.
- Remembering and even in the present relishing in visual stimulation, both sexually and emotionally, is a masculine trait. Paying attention to sounds and feelings (physicaly sensations as well as emotional) is feminine. Males are sight-driven beings and the role of males in hunting was seen in absolutely all cultures throughout history, even in matriarchal tribes, simply because males are better suited to it and much more capable at aiming and reacting to visual stimuli, both close and far. Feminine beings are driven to pay attention to sounds and emotions of those around them, their alertness to a baby's distant cry or even adult's groan of pain (or joy) helped them be the alarm system and 'problem patchers' of absolutely all tribes, cultures, societies etc throughout our history as a species as well as in many other species.
Welcome to the club. I've had to wait almost a month too on the flat earth debate lol
Is there any way that you could lower the debate time? Considering that RationalMadman said in the forums that he was leaving the site.
There is a fundamental difference between the two that makes this a false equivalence, that I have already explained.
Climate change effects people worse than misgendering does. It's not directly effecting people, but it's still effecting people. If we don't jail climate deniers, we shouldn't jail misgenderers.
Many paths to victory for both sides here, I look forward to it.
That's cool... I guess... I don't need that, nor do I care. Thank you? The entire axiom of your argument is fallacious, I think I'll attack that instead.
By the way, birds have many more exceptions than just the one mentioned there. Birds don't have XX vs XY they have it flipped. In birds, males are the identical chromosome and females are the opposite one. I'm letting you know this because it's a five-round debate and I saved comebacks and points for later. I want your attack on my 'masculine females in other species' to be fully equipped.
Yes but it affects people "differently" and that is my point. Global warming does not affect people's psychological state as directly as being transgender does, as being transgender is about an individual's gender, i.e, they're psychological perspective.
I think we fundamentally agree that people generally shouldn’t be jailed for misgendering people.
People with depression should take meds to deal with it. I have mental problems and I take meds. It works effectively.
"Climate change does not directly relate to these people's psychological states."
I could argue that climate change is a more serious issue than transgenderism because it effects everyone. Transgender rights only effect transgenders and their families primarily. We don't jail climate deniers for denying climate change even though it is something much more serious to be "wrong" about. We shouldn't jail people for misgendering regardless on whether or not such people are "wrong".
Care workers aren't bullying transgenders by using non preferred pronouns. Ultimately, the transgender person should find a therapist that is fine with using preferred pronouns. There is enough therapists for them to pick from.
Did you finish the article, where it explained how jail time almost certainly wouldn’t happen?
Also, does not apply to the general public—it refers specifically to care workers who are using pronouns to bully their patients.
A quote from the article is,
"Violations of the bill could, under limited circumstances, be treated as a misdemeanor with punishment of up to one year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine."
This is off topic, but if you don't believe anyone should go to jail, how would you punish murderers?
Your understanding of the bill is misleading. No one is going to jail.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/sep/26/claims-mislead-about-california-bill-forcing-jail-/
Who has gone to jail for misgendering someone? Do you have an example? I personally don’t think people should go to jail period.
That's like saying people with depression ought to, "Grow a thick skin" what the actual h*ll? That kind of rhetoric is what increases the suicide rate in America, "Ah we shouldn't do anything to help people who are at risk, let's just tell em' to deal with it." or "Ah, that woman has been sexually harassed, tell her to get over it." Both are insanely harmful and are wrong.
As for the majority offense, that's a false equivalence - as well as the pro-choice example. Yes, hate speech is protected, but if you read the actual bill it's not covering it on the basis of hate speech but of equality and non-discriminatory laws. Most of which have already been established and are already in law. Climate change does not directly relate to these people's psychological states. It is a major phenomenon that has the potential to wipe life on earth, they do not correlate. The same to the abortion thing, that is relating to something that does not yet have human rights, they do not correlate.
Whether or not one is factually wrong is up to the facts isn't it? For example, many people say that climate change is a fact. Yet we don't jail climate change deniers. If a transgender person gets psychologically damaged by someone misgendering them, they need to grow a thick skin. A majority of America believes that there are only 2 genders and they should not be put in jail for this.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/08/transgender-issues-divide-republicans-and-democrats/
For example, imagine if saying something pro choice was deemed hate speech towards the unborn. Every open pro choicer would go to jail. Yet hate speech is protected by the first amendment and the supreme court ruled this multiple times.
Except your factually wrong, saying there are two genders. Not to mention the clear psychological damage done to the trans person. It's not a violation of the first amendment under certain exceptions, this can just be another one of them.
"Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."
"And the punishment is a misdeamnor which is: "Standard California misdemeanors are offenses that are usually punishable by a maximum of: 6 months in county jail, and /or. A fine of up to $1,000.""
So this means that if you believe that there are only 2 genders and you act on that in a peaceful manner by misgendering on ideological grounds, you get punished? If so, that is a violation of the 1st amendment.
Have you read the actual law? I have:
1439.51. (a) - (5) reads: "Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."
And the punishment is a misdeamnor which is: "Standard California misdemeanors are offenses that are usually punishable by a maximum of: 6 months in county jail, and /or. A fine of up to $1,000."
Notice the "Up to" part? You are drastically taking this out of context. Not to mention, basing the misdeamnor charge on Texas standards instead of california standards. This is why we actually research things please.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB219
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/laws/misdemeanor/#:~:text=1.1.-,Punishment%20for%20a%20standard%20misdemeanor,fine%20of%20up%20to%20%241%2C000.
In California, misgendering on ideological grounds gets you put in jail for a year. By comparison, willingly spread HIV/AIDS is punishable by 6 months in jail in the state of CA. Now you know why people are fleeing the state. The state needs to sort out its priorities.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/sep/26/claims-mislead-about-california-bill-forcing-jail-/
Interesting, I suppose I'll see for my self whenever you post your arguments. To a good debate and all.
Of course it is binary. Us vs Them.
Digital vs analogue isn't the same as binary vs multi-polar.
I believe genders are real and inescapable but that a very masculine female should be allowed to refer to herself by pronouns he/they feel/s comfortable with. Same goes for feminine males. I'm not one to make fun of people.
Are you devil's advocate or do you genuinely hold the position?
Your answer has no bearings on the debate itself, just curious.
I've got enough debates on my plate, maybe another time!
Looking forward to reading this
Yeah?
I see, that makes more sense.
They can argue the definitions, or try to provide a better one. I simply gave a definition of gender which is topical.
Your definition of gender includes three groups - male, female, and neuter. Wouldn't that definition already contradict the idea of gender being binary? I'm just thinking it would be hard to argue if the provided definition already assumes more than two groups.
As someone who's dated Transgender people, and has spent a lot time researching the subject, and it's implications and things of that nature, I would be inclined to agree. Unless maliciousness could be proven, that shouldn't be a thing. Of course I'm not familiar with the law there, so there could be context we're both missing.
I don't know enough about this issue to argue it but the notion that you can get jailed for misgendering in California is insane.
Hmm, I would disagree. Hypotheticals can be interesting and all, but not when the thesis is completely contradictory. Gender is itself, definitionally non binary. Of course, if someone could demonstrate this untrue, or provide a definition that does not imply this, then fine. Until then, I find the topic insensitive to say the least. Not to say I would report it, simply a matter of fact on my feelings on it.
Never mind. I thought it over and I feel like the "assigning roles" in society is probably outdated. If we were arguing about 1600's, Binary vs non-binary might be worth a shot.
Here's an interesting philosophical topic though: In an alternate universe where Gender was binary, would this world be superior to live in than our world? After all, now there are no transgender people being made fun of. And yet, if Gender WAS binary, that could reinforce the stereotypes of man being strong and brave, and women being weak and kind.
Nah, Con can argue the definitions, or just make a convincing argument in opposing. If I were to tweak it, how would you suggest I do so?
this debate is impossible for con to win. A bit of tweak, please?
This debate may interest you.
Wouldn't have been my main argument, but okay then.
I've been wanting to debate this for a bit, but I thought no one would accept. I have a feeling our pro of a new debater, 9.9.9, might have something to say to this.
In my opinion, a dictionary saying something is something does not mean that it is true unless it is corroborated by evidence... Still, good luck fighting the "this is a truism" battle..
If anyone accepts this, they will probably argue that it should be because of their precious feelings.