THBT: Trans-people are, and ought to be treated, as the gender they identify as
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Trans - "used to describe someone who feels that they are not the same gender (= sex) as the physical body they were born with:" [A]
Gender - " the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and sex reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female" [B]
Treat - "to behave toward someone or deal with something in a particular way:" [C]
Identify - "to recognize a problem, need, fact, etc. and to show that it exists:" [D]
[A] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/trans
[B] - https://dictionary.apa.org/gender
[C] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/treat?q=treated
[D] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/identify
General Rules:
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Sources should be posted in the debate rounds, hyperlinked or otherwise
3. Burden of Proof is shared
- Trans - "adj. having or relating to a gender identity that differs from the culturally determined gender roles for one’s birth sex (i.e., the biological sex one was born with) or for one’s sex as surgically assigned at birth:" [A]
- Gender - "n. the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and sex reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female" [B]
- Treat - "to behave toward someone or deal with something in a particular way:" [C]
- Identify - "to recognize a problem, need, fact, etc. and to show that it exists:" [D]
- People whose gender identity differs from the culturally determined gender roles for one's birth sex (or sex's which is assigned at birth) are, and ought to have people behave towards them as, the gender which they recognize, and shows it to exist.
- We are specifically discussing people whose internal sense of gender identity does not match the one assigned at birth
- That these people are the gender that they identify as, not just that they think such a thing to be true, but that they are
- That these people are owed an obligation for the general population to behave towards them as the gender they identify with
- Psychological traits or properties are inherently emergent properties of neurological properties of one's self - therefore neurological properties apply to gender
- My BoP is to demonstrate, most reasonably, that generally, trans-people are the gender they identify as, and that they ought to be treated that way
- My opponent would have to disprove both claims in order to fully uphold their BoP, as leaving one unrebuked leaves my BoP partially intact
- "the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and sex reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female"
"Our data reveal a sex-atypical INAH3 volume and neuron number in transsexual male-to-female people to be in the female range, while the values of a female-to-male subject were in the male range. Differences in adult testosterone levels can only partly explain the observed differences in the INAH3 subdivision of transsexual people while estrogen levels do not seem to have an influence. In male-to-female subjects the number of neurons in the INAH3 does not seem to be related to sexual orientation, nor to the onset time of transsexuality, but rather to atypical early female-biased gender." (1)
"...The first structural difference in the human hypothalamus was reported by our group in the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area (SDN-POA) that we found to be 2.5 times larger in men than in women and to contain 2.2 times as many cells ... also called the intermediate nucleus ... The latter authors described four interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH1-4) and found a larger volume in men compared to women for INAH3 (2.8 times) and for INAH2 (2 times) subdivisions. The fact that they could not find a sex difference in INAH1 as found by us ....could be fully explained by the strong age effect on the sex differences of this nucleus..." (1)
"A significant sex difference was found for brain wieght... Male brain weight was higher than female brain weight (P < 0.001). Male-to-female transsexual persons had a brain weight ....in between that of the males ... and females...(Tables 1 and 2), that was almost significantly different from the male group, ...but not different from the females ...." (1)
"The INAH3 subdivision in males was significantly (1.9 times) larger than in females... The INAH3 volume values fully agree with the previously reported data (Table 4). Comparing the male-to-female transsexual group to the male group revealed a significant difference in the INAH3 subdivision.... , while no difference was found when the male-to-female group was compared to the female group ....(Figs 5 and 8)." (1)
"The male group had a higher total number of neurons ... and a higher density of neurons ... than the female group (Fig. 6 and 7). Male-to-female transsexual people had a lower number of neurons compared to control males... while no significant difference was found in neuronal density .... They did not differ from the female control group with regard to the number of neurons .... or neuronal density .... (Figs 6 and 7)." (1)
"Hormones that trigger the development of sex and gender in the womb may not function adequately. For example, anatomical sex from the genitals may be male, while the gender identity that comes from the brain could be female. This may result from the excess female hormones from the mother’s system or by the foetus’s insensitivity to the hormones.....In CAH a female foetus has adrenal glands (small caps of glands over the kidneys) that produce high level of male hormones. This enlarges the female genitals and the female baby may be confused with a male at birth." (2)
"It is well established that biology plays a major role. In fact, in the last few years research has focused mainly on neuroanatomy and sexual dimorphism of the brain, exploring the influence and shaping role of several genes and sex hormones [4]. In particular, the sexual dimorphic brain is considered the anatomical substrate of psychosexual development, on which genes and gonadal hormones may have a shaping effect [11]. Growing evidence shows that prenatal and pubertal sex hormones permanently affect human behaviour and heritability studies have demonstrated a role of genetic components. Indeed, cismen and ciswomen present anatomical differences in the total brain volume, as well as in several sex-dimorphic structures. In particular, the total brain volume is bigger in cismen, and in transgender men similar volumes to the assigned gender at birth were found [12,13,14,15].However, the total intracranial volume in transwomen resulted to be in between male and female controls [12]. Furthermore, sex differences have been observed in cortical thickness that is higher in ciswomen compared to cismen in several regions [16,17]. Studies conducted on transgender individuals reported signs of feminisation in cortical thickness of transwomen, while no sign of masculinisation was found in transmen [18,19]. Another sexual dimorphic area seems to be represented by the amygdala and the hippocampus. Indeed, the amygdala is larger in cismen and with a higher density of androgen than oestrogen receptors, whereas portions of the hippocampus are larger in women, with a higher density of oestrogen than androgen receptors (AR) [20,21]." (2)
"the popular explanation that there is a female and a male brain on the base of gender behavioural differences is not supported by a strong empirical background [11], as, for example, men and women share more similarities than differences [38,39,40,41,42,43]. Furthermore, a great variability in behavioural and psychological aspects is shown between genders" (2)
"(A)ccording to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders are defined as a "marked incongruence between their experienced or expressed gender and the one they were assigned at birth." People who experience this turmoil cannot correlate to their gender expression when identifying themselves within the traditional, rigid societal binary male or female roles, which may cause cultural stigmatization. This can further result in relationship difficulties with family, peers, friends and lead to interpersonal conflicts, rejection from society, symptoms of depression and anxiety, substance use disorders, a negative sense of well-being and poor self-esteem, and an increased risk of self-harm and suicidality" (3)
"Patients with this condition should be provided with psychiatric support. Hormonal therapy and surgical therapy are also available depending on the individual case and patient needs. This activity describes the evaluation and management of gender dysphoria and reviews the role of the interprofessional team in improving care for those with this condition." (3)
"The first exploratory factor analysis identified minor potential adjustments, which were refined and retested. Researchers evaluated and cross-validated the hypothesized factor structure and determined that the three factor GQI subscales and the unidimensional Gender Fluidity measure yielded internally consistent and valid scores among transgender individuals seeking clinical treatment and LGB individuals within a community setting. The exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses provide evidence of good reliability, construct validity, and internal consistency of all four subscales." (4)
"There is also growing evidence the childhood abuse, neglect, maltreatment, and physical or sexual abuse may be associated with GD. Individuals reporting higher body dissatisfaction and GD have a worse prognosis in terms of mental health. And as mentioned above in epidemiology, individuals with GD are found to have higher rates of depression, suicidal ideations, and substance use. Neuroanatomical links have been found in certain studies. A major one is faulty neuronal development and differentiation in the hypothalamic links. Functional neuroimaging has shown variations in hemispheric ratios and amygdala connectivity according to gender. A few case reports have reported some association of GD to maternal toxoplasma infection, although additional data is needed for further evidence. A genetic association is also identified as one of the causes of GD. Heritability and familiality of GD have been identified: for instance, higher prevalence in monozygotic twins than dizygotic twins. Some alleles (CYP17 and CYP17 T-34C) have also been found to have an association, although it is difficult to say if it is merely association or causation." (3)
"Children or adolescents who experience this turmoil cannot correlate to their gender expression when identifying themselves within traditional societal binary male or female roles, which may cause cultural stigmatization. This can further lead to relationship conflicts with family, peers, friends in various aspects of their daily lives and lead to rejection from society, interpersonal conflicts, symptoms of depression and anxiety, substance use disorders, a negative sense of well-being and poor self-esteem, and increased risk of self-harm and suicidality." (3)
"One study looked at Native Americans and found that those who outsiders perceived as belonging to a different racial group experienced higher rates of depression and suicidality than those who were recognized for who they really were. Another study focused on multiracial individuals and found that those who were forced to report a single racial identity on a demographic form experienced lower self-esteem than those who were allowed to select multiple racial identities. And a study of transgender people found that the more frequently their gender identity was denied, the more stress and depression they experienced." (5)
Gender - "n. the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and sex reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female" [B]
one’s self-identification as male or female. Although the dominant approach in psychology for many years had been to regard gender identity as residing in individuals, the important influence of societal structures, cultural expectations, and personal interactions in its development is now recognized as well. Significant evidence now exists to support the conceptualization of gender identity as influenced by both environmental and biological factors.
The hypothalamic region of 42 brains was obtained from the Netherlands Brain Bank (NBB), with informed consent for a brain autopsy and the use of the tissue and the clinical data for research purposes. We selected 25 brains from control patients (14 males and 11 females) without an endocrine, neurological or psychiatric disease. The control male and female patients were matched for sex, age (range males: 25–81 years, females: 21–82 years) post-mortem delay and fixation time (Table 1). Possible confounding factors such as post-mortem delay, fixation time and hour of death for the male, female, transsexual and castrated groups did not differ in Kruskal–Wallis and Mardia–Watson–Wheeler tests [P > 0.109; P > 0.08; Chi-square (df3) = 3.68; P > 0.2981, respectively]. A systematic neuropathological investigation of all the subjects was performed (cf. Van de Nes et al., 1998) by Dr W. Kamphorst (Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).
- releasing hormones
- regulating body temperature
- maintaining daily physiological cycles
- controlling appetite
- managing of sexual behavior
- regulating emotional responses
Anatomy and functionThe hypothalamus has three main regions. Each one contains different nuclei. These are clusters of neurons that perform vital functions, such as releasing hormones.Anterior regionThis area is also called the supraoptic region. Its major nuclei include the supraoptic and paraventricular nuclei. There are several other smaller nuclei in the anterior region as well.The nuclei in the anterior region are largely involved in the secretion of various hormones. Many of these hormones interact with the nearby pituitary gland to produce additional hormones.Some of the most important hormones produced in the anterior region include:
- Corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH). CRH is involved in the body’s response to both physical and emotional stress. It signals the pituitary gland to produce a hormone called adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH). ACTH triggers the production of cortisol, an important stress hormone.
- Thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH). TRH production stimulates the pituitary gland to produce thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). TSH plays an important role in the function of many body parts, such as the heart, gastrointestinal tract, and muscles.
- Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH). GnRH production causes the pituitary gland to produce important reproductive hormones, such as follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH).
- Oxytocin. This hormone controls many important behaviors and emotions, such as sexual arousal, trust, recognition, and maternal behavior. It’s also involved in some functions of the reproductive system, such as childbirth and lactation.
- Vasopressin. Also called antidiuretic hormone (ADH), this hormone regulates water levels in the body. When vasopressin is released, it signals the kidneys to absorb water.
- Somatostatin. Somatostatin works to stop the pituitary gland from releasing certain hormones, including growth hormones and thyroid-stimulating hormones.
The anterior region of the hypothalamus also helps regulate body temperature through sweat. It also maintains circadian rhythms. These are physical and behavioral changes that occur on a daily cycle. For example, being awake during the day and sleeping at nighttime is a circadian rhythm related to the presence or absence of light.Middle regionThis area is also called the tuberal region. Its major nuclei are the ventromedial and arcuate nuclei.The ventromedial nucleus helps control appetite, while the arcuate nucleus is involved in releasing growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH). GHRH stimulates the pituitary gland to produce growth hormone. This is responsible for the growth and development of the body.Posterior regionThis area is also called the mammillary region. The posterior hypothalamic nucleus and mammillary nuclei are its main nuclei.The posterior hypothalamic nucleus helps regulate body temperature by causing shivering and blocking sweat production.The role of the mammillary nuclei is less clear. Doctors believe it’s involved in memory function.
- Inner Guide
- 1a - Reviewing Con's case
- 1b - Nonexplicit Function
- 1c - Derivative Evidence
"You'll notice that something's missing: identity. Where in its description is the hypothalamus listed as responsible for one's identity, much less one's "gendered" identity? Where does it state that the hypothalamus is responsible for self-identification?" [1]
- Corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH). CRH is involved in the body’s response to both physical and emotional stress. It signals the pituitary gland to produce a hormone called adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH). ACTH triggers the production of cortisol, an important stress hormone.
- Thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH). TRH production stimulates the pituitary gland to produce thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). TSH plays an important role in the function of many body parts, such as the heart, gastrointestinal tract, and muscles.
- Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH). GnRH production causes the pituitary gland to produce important reproductive hormones, such as follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH).
- Oxytocin. This hormone controls many important behaviors and emotions, such as sexual arousal, trust, recognition, and maternal behavior. It’s also involved in some functions of the reproductive system, such as childbirth and lactation.
- Vasopressin. Also called antidiuretic hormone (ADH), this hormone regulates water levels in the body. When vasopressin is released, it signals the kidneys to absorb water.
- Somatostatin. Somatostatin works to stop the pituitary gland from releasing certain hormones, including growth hormones and thyroid-stimulating hormones.
- Corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH).
- Oxytocin
"Corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) is a 41-amino acid peptide that has a key role in the adjustment of neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behavioral adaptations to stress [1,2]. One major neuroendocrine system involved in mediating the stress response is the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Hypothalamic CRH neurons drive both basal and stress-induced HPA activation." [2]
"The neuropeptides oxytocin (OT) and vasopressin (VP) are hormones that are known to mediate social behavior and cognition, but their influence may be sex-dependent. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of the sex-related influence of OT and VP on social cognition, focusing on partner preference and sexual orientation, trust and relevant behaviors, memory modulation, and emotion regulation." [4]
- To sum up rebuttal one - the hypothalamus does indeed excrete several chemicals/hormones that are likely responsible for the formation of gender identity, and even if it weren't, the fact that something didn't create x, doesn't mean that you can't derive evidence about x from that thing.
- Inner Guide
- 2a - Reviewing Con's Case
- 2b - Regarding Gender
- 2c - Gatekeeping Gender
"Because what has escaped my opponent is that the subject of identity is essentially abstract. Even my opponent cites a source (APA) which describes identity as characteristics subject to one's "sense" of self that isn't "wholly shared" with another. The notion that a person is an individual who has values, emotions, perspectives that are not just subject to but also dictate said individual's experiences is self-evident (literally!)""....Note that my opponent's neurological citations coincide with his submitted definitions and distinction of "sex," not "gender...." [1]
[Q]: "what is it? For example, what is a male's identity? And how is it distinguishable from a female's identity? What are the distinct "body sensations, body images, and feelings that one's memories, goals, values, expectations, and beliefs [belonging] to the self that are DISTINCTLY MALE OR FEMALE?:" [1]
- Gender - "n. the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and sex reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female"
- usually
- implies
- Psychological
"Psychological traits or properties are inherently emergent properties of neurological properties of one's self - therefore neurological properties apply to gender"
"“Personality is an abstraction used to explain consistency and coherency in an individual’s pattern of affects, cognitions, desires and behaviors [ABCDs]” (Revelle, 2007, p. 37). But personality research currently provides more a taxonomy of patterns than theories of fundamental causes. Psychiatric disorders can be viewed as involving extremes of personality but are diagnosed via symptom patterns not biological causes. Such surface-level taxonomic description is necessary for science, but consistent predictive explanation requires causal theory. Personality constructs, and especially their clinical extremes, should predict variation in ABCD patterns, with parsimony requiring the lowest effective causal level of explanation. But, even biologically inspired personality theories currently use an intuitive language-based approach for scale development that lacks biological anchors. I argue that teleonomic “purpose” explains the organisation and outputs of conserved brain emotion systems, where high activation is adaptive in specific situations but is otherwise maladaptive" [6]
- Abstract
- Self-Identifying
- Superficially Undistinguishable
"The idea that language mediates our thoughts and enables abstract cognition has been a key idea in socio-cultural psychology. However, it is not clear what mechanisms support this process of abstraction. Peirce argued that one mechanism by which language enables abstract thought is hypostatic abstraction, the process through which a predicate (e.g., dark) turns into an object (e.g., darkness)." [8]
- To conclude rebuttal two, my opponent's claim that the neurological evidence presented in round 1 applies to sex and not gender is false based on the implicit neccessity of neurology causing psychology, furthermore the reflection of said terms are to be used in occurdence of its meaning, furthermore, the fact that it is difficult to distinguish gender, or that it is abstract is not any indication that gender identity is somehow "invalid".
- Inner Guide
- 3a - Reviewing Con's case
- 3b - Transgender Harm
- 3c - Multiracial Ethics
"Last, my opponent attempts to conscript essentially everyone in assuming responsibility for the well-being of gender dysphoric trans individuals using "emotional blackmail," i.e. if we don't perceive these gender-dysphoric individuals as part of the yet to be defined and distinguishable group to which they identify, then we are essentially complicit and serve as the catalyst for their suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, childhood abuse, physical/sexual abuse, neglect, bullying, harm, depression, maltreatment, and the like. He employs an ill-constructed syllogism to conflate one's "desire" to live to that of others (that is, the two premises do not logically and necessarily extend to his proposed conclusion.)" [1]
Q: "If my opponent is going to suggest that trans-people ought to be treated as the gender to which they identify, then how does he prescribe "cisgenders," and others who aren't trans, "treat" trans-people in accordance to their identified gender?" [1]
Q: "How does one treat another as a "male" or a "female," or a "non-cis male," or "non-cis female," or "non-binary"?" [1]
Q: " If one trans-individual informs a cis-gendered individual on his/her/zhim/zer sense of gendered identity, does one then apply that to every other trans-individual?" [1]
Q: "And if this identification is subject to an individual's "sense" of it, then can one truly treat another, trans or not, in accordance to one's gender?"
"He employs an ill-constructed syllogism to conflate one's "desire" to live to that of others (that is, the two premises do not logically and necessarily extend to his proposed conclusion.)" [1]
In order for that desire to recpricated, you must respect that others have a desire to live, and allow them to live. To put it syllogistically:P1: You desire to liveP2: Others desire to liveCon: Allowing one another to live fulfills both desires
"He also cites an example of multiracial individuals who reported experiencing low self esteem after filling out a demographic form which lacked options for multiple races"
"One study looked at Native Americans and found that those who outsiders perceived as belonging to a different racial group experienced higher rates of depression and suicidality than those who were recognized for who they really were. Another study focused on multiracial individuals and found that those who were forced to report a single racial identity on a demographic form experienced lower self-esteem than those who were allowed to select multiple racial identities. And a study of transgender people found that the more frequently their gender identity was denied, the more stress and depression they experienced."
- In summary, my opponent doesn't actually have an argument, he asserts that my syllogism is invalid, but does not substantiate this, he attempts to equiovcate race and gender and being attracted to people who can reproduce and transwomen, but both fail to actually be valid in the way that Con interprets them.
Prior to this, my opponent cites the precise functions of the hypothalamus, essentially he is arguing that: because it is not the function of the hypothalamus to establish gender identity, it is, therefore, true that the constructive I provided regarding the hypothalamus is not evidence for the validity of gender identity. If this is somehow a misrepresentation of my opponent's argument I ask that they establish such in the second round, until then I will proceed with this interpretation.
Why is that at all relevant to our discussion regarding gender identity? Very simply put - we are discussing the reasons why the functions of the hypothalamus are related to gender identity. From there the connection is quite simple; gender dysphoria, an affiliation that is derived from external and internal stress regarding a conflict of an individual's physiological shape and gender identity [3], is quite clearly related and regulated by CHR - one of the Hypathalmus's primary functions. Given that fact, CRH has to be one of the key hormones in gender identity - as the only way that gender dysphoria can even form is a conflict between gender identity and another characteristic of an individual. Thus, any key formation of gender identity is reliant on CRH regulating stress, which determines if a transgender individual develops gender identity.
Oxytocin is a lot of things, but its primary function is to influence social relationships between individuals of a population:"The neuropeptides oxytocin (OT) and vasopressin (VP) are hormones that are known to mediate social behavior and cognition, but their influence may be sex-dependent. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of the sex-related influence of OT and VP on social cognition, focusing on partner preference and sexual orientation, trust and relevant behaviors, memory modulation, and emotion regulation." [4]The relevance here should be much more easily explained: the primary angle that I presented my evidence from the first round was establishing a concrete correlation between sexual dimorphism in the brain and gender identity which isn't cis-gender. Therefore, the fact that Oxytocin's key role is dictating sexual dimorphism in mammals makes the relation extremely clear. Individual's who are assigned a gender that conflicts with their gender identity's brain still develop as someone of their gender identity would develop, it subtly differs from the other gender, thus - oxytocin must be one of the key hormones in establishing gender identity, and especially in allowing it to develop over time - as the evidence provided before clearly demonstrates that gender identity and neurology correlate explicitly based on sexual dimorphism.Given this evidence, it is quite clear that the hypothalamus does indeed have key roles in establishing and maintaining gender identity, this evidence also clearly contradicts my opponent's claim made in the previous round - yes - the hypothalamus is involved in gender identity - very much indeed.
However, even if my opponent were to disprove every point of the previous section, even if the Hypathalmus did indeed have no relation or function in regard to gender identity,
Recall: Con's position is that because the hypothalamus has no function of forming gender identity (false), it is therefore true that my citations aren't evidence of any correlation in gender identity and dimorphism of the hypothalamus.
This claim is fundamentally and logically flawed - the fact that something does not create or cause something as a function does not mean that the thing created cannot affect that something.
In other words, the fact that the hypothalamus doesn't make gender identity doesn't mean that you can't get evidence for gender identity from the hypothalamus. That's... absurd, it would be like claiming that the only way you could prove anything about stars is from the nebula that created them - or learn anything about water would be consulting oxygen and hydrogen molecules, all of these claims are absurd. You can derive evidence of x from y without y creating x. For example; Tom made a chair, and Alexa bought that chair. Alexa doesn't need to take the chair back to Tom to identify the broken chair leg.
Prior to this, my opponent attempted to establish several questions that would, presumably, poke holes in the idea of gender identity. Primarily he wants to establish that gender identity is a vague concept and that there is no actual way to distinguish a cis individual from a trans-individual.
A: They are distinguishable via self-identification - they are different experientially.
What I'm arguing is that while gender usually does refer to purely social and cultural aspects of the gender/sex divide, the fact that their is a psychological aspect means that gender is defacto neurological, and therefore by proxy biological. Note that the definition specifically clarifies that the distinguishment of these terms are via the usuage of them, what does this mean? That the reason why we don't think of the neuroscience of gender is because we primarily talk about gender in a social or cultural context. The mere fact that my argument "seems" to follow one more than the other is irrelevent, as here we are discussing gender in both a social and a neurologic framework.
My opponent appeals to these characteristics in some sort of informal reductio ad absurdum (presenting parts or facts regarding something as absurd in order to discredit it logically [7]). The problem is that an ad absurdum by itself does nothing to actually substantiate something absurd, it appeals to what is presumed to be absurd.
Reading between the lines, it is clear that my opponent finds something which cannot be specifically distinguished as something invalid - or at the very least inconsistent insofar as treating them as such a thing goes. There is a huge problem there though, the fact that something is abstract or not fully explored does not make the existence of that thing any less certain, nor does it somehow make that principle less valid.
Simiarly, gender is something that can only be seperated by one's internal and experiential identification of their gender - what distinguishes them is inherently individual, it would be like asking what seperates red from green - I suppose you could argue that they are seperate by different wavelengths of light, but how would you verify that that wavelength is that shade of color? You can't - because that is experiential.
Following this argument is an equivocation of race and gender, arguing that the citation I use regarding native american identity being denied causes empirical harm means that I should accept said equovication of gender and race, and based off of that, that any any self-identification would be at conflict with another identification. The above is essentially arguging that my syllogism regarding how we treat others is wrong and the citation of the empirical harms of misgendering is "emotionally blackmailing" the "us" of the syllogism. If this is somehow a misrepresentation of my opponent's argument I ask that they establish such in the second round, until then I will proceed with this interpretation.
Generally, by treating them as you would treat somebody of the gender they identify with and not the gender you percieve,
primarily through correct pronouns.
For example, you see your male friend named Tom, Tom leaves the room immediately after, and someone asks you where Tom went: You would respond, "He left the room,", essentially just treating them without the bias of what you assume their gender to be, and using the correct pronoun.
The question itself is nonsense, a gender identity necccessarily applies to each indiviudal seperately, hence the word, "identity", this would be like asking, "If one person informs you that they're gay, does that mean every person who isn't straight is gay?" All you do is ask people their gender... it's not that difficult.
A: Yes - you treat that indiviudal as they tell you they sense it - the answer is in the question itself.
I would like Con to please specifically explain the invalidity of the above syllogism
self
n. the totality of the individual, consisting of all characteristic attributes, conscious and unconscious, mental and physical. Apart from its basic reference to personal identity, being, and experience, the term’s use in psychology is wide-ranging. According to William James, self can refer either to the person as the target of appraisal (i.e., one introspectively evaluates how one is doing) or to the person as the source of agency (i.e., one attributes the source of regulation of perception, thought, and behavior to one’s body or mind). Carl Jung maintained that the self gradually develops by a process of individuation, which is not complete until late maturity is reached...
individuation
n.1. generally, the physiological, psychological, and sociocultural processes by which a person attains status as an individual human being and exerts himself or herself as such in the world.
Gender - " the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and sex reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female" [B]
Definition of whereas
(Entry 1 of 2)1a : while on the contraryb : although
A: They are distinguishable via self-identification - they are different experientially.
Why is that at all relevant to our discussion regarding gender identity? Very simply put - we are discussing the reasons why the functions of the hypothalamus are related to gender identity. From there the connection is quite simple; gender dysphoria, an affiliation that is derived from external and internal stress regarding a conflict of an individual's physiological shape and gender identity [3], is quite clearly related and regulated by CHR - one of the Hypathalmus's primary functions. Given that fact, CRH has to be one of the key hormones in gender identity - as the only way that gender dysphoria can even form is a conflict between gender identity and another characteristic of an individual. Thus, any key formation of gender identity is reliant on CRH regulating stress, which determines if a transgender individual develops gender identity.No, we are not discussing how the functions of the hypothalamus are "related" to gender identity. I'm questioning how the functions of the hypothalamus allegedly inform gender identity. And as you can see, my opponent is clearly employing sophistry. He's rendering conclusions based on loose connections, i.e. the CRH is a stress regulating hormone, gender-dysphoria involves stress induced by a conflict between one's physiological shape and one's gender identity, therefore gender identity is informed by CRH secretion. Secretion levels of CRH are suspected to inform a plethora of conditions such as anxiety, Depression, and anorexia nervosa. It could also worsen rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn's disease. It's a stress regulating hormone. And experiencing stress isn't gender-specific.
"Given that fact, CRH has to be one of the key hormones in gender identity - as the only way that gender dysphoria can even form is a conflict between gender identity and another characteristic of an individual. Thus, any key formation of gender identity is reliant on CRH regulating stress, which determines if a transgender individual develops gender identity"
Oxytocin doesn't have a primary function given it's importance in gestation and giving birth as well. But once again, my opponent is employing sophistry--using loose connections to render conclusion he has not explicitly demonstrated. He argues "it must be" without explicitly delineating the information these hormones provide to gender identity. Only assumed correlations.
My opponent's entire argument rests on a yet to be substantiated equivalence, i.e. the physiology of the brain = mind = identity. Until he substantiates this equivalence, he CANNOT satisfy his burden.
: identify how these sexual dimporphic physiological differences in the brain (specifically the hypothalamus) manifest in one's identity. Identify how they are distinguishable.
In other words, the fact that the hypothalamus doesn't make gender identity doesn't mean that you can't get evidence for gender identity from the hypothalamus. That's... absurd, it would be like claiming that the only way you could prove anything about stars is from the nebula that created them - or learn anything about water would be consulting oxygen and hydrogen molecules, all of these claims are absurd. You can derive evidence of x from y without y creating x. For example; Tom made a chair, and Alexa bought that chair. Alexa doesn't need to take the chair back to Tom to identify the broken chair leg.
A: They are distinguishable via self-identification - they are different experientially.EXACTLY! Then what relevance do your neurological studies have in demonstrating a "correlation" if self-identification--in this case with one's "gender"--is subject to EXPERIENCE? Is experience informed by sexual dimorphism? Is the self subject to sex-based differences in the brain, and if so, how?
What I'm arguing is that while gender usually does refer to purely social and cultural aspects of the gender/sex divide, the fact that their is a psychological aspect means that gender is defacto neurological, and therefore by proxy biological. Note that the definition specifically clarifies that the distinguishment of these terms are via the usuage of them, what does this mean? That the reason why we don't think of the neuroscience of gender is because we primarily talk about gender in a social or cultural context. The mere fact that my argument "seems" to follow one more than the other is irrelevent, as here we are discussing gender in both a social and a neurologic framework.Yet again, my opponent is employing sophistry. This time, it's the employ of an erroneous biconditional, i.e. pyshcology = neuroscience. He has not substantiated this equivalence. He would have you accept this transitively, i.e. psychology studies the mind, the mind is a property of the brain, the brain is neurobiological, therefore psychology, like neuroscience, studies the neurobiological. And while my opponent seeks to create no distinction between psychology and the biological, his definition clearly does.My opponent appeals to these characteristics in some sort of informal reductio ad absurdum (presenting parts or facts regarding something as absurd in order to discredit it logically [7]). The problem is that an ad absurdum by itself does nothing to actually substantiate something absurd, it appeals to what is presumed to be absurd.
Next - please draw your attention to the third term specifically - psychological - I submit a defintiion for the term now:Further recall the framework established in round 1:"Psychological traits or properties are inherently emergent properties of neurological properties of one's self - therefore neurological properties apply to gender"To back this up - a study explaining the neuroscience of personality:"“Personality is an abstraction used to explain consistency and coherency in an individual’s pattern of affects, cognitions, desires and behaviors [ABCDs]” (Revelle, 2007, p. 37). But personality research currently provides more a taxonomy of patterns than theories of fundamental causes. Psychiatric disorders can be viewed as involving extremes of personality but are diagnosed via symptom patterns not biological causes. Such surface-level taxonomic description is necessary for science, but consistent predictive explanation requires causal theory. Personality constructs, and especially their clinical extremes, should predict variation in ABCD patterns, with parsimony requiring the lowest effective causal level of explanation. But, even biologically inspired personality theories currently use an intuitive language-based approach for scale development that lacks biological anchors. I argue that teleonomic “purpose” explains the organisation and outputs of conserved brain emotion systems, where high activation is adaptive in specific situations but is otherwise maladaptive" [6]
You see, your neurological studies employ fixed standards of sex, i.e. the manifestation of sexual dimorphism in the hypothalamic region of the brain. And you've been using correlations to argue these manifestation are emergent in one's mind, and therefore one's identity. If one's self-identification with one's gender is primarily, or as you stated ONLY, subject to an individual's experience, then the correlations which you argued are ENTIRELY USELESS because they are informed by a sex-based standard that is undermined by individuality. That is, it doesn't matter that when analyzing the brains of trans individuals the INAH volumes were comparable to a specified sex, because the the manner in which they identified with their gender is still subject to their individual experiences. And since our discussion is not focused correlations of sexual physiology, then your studies have yet to provide any information that trans individuals are the gender with which they identify.
Following this argument is an equivocation of race and gender, arguing that the citation I use regarding native american identity being denied causes empirical harm means that I should accept said equovication of gender and race, and based off of that, that any any self-identification would be at conflict with another identification. The above is essentially arguging that my syllogism regarding how we treat others is wrong and the citation of the empirical harms of misgendering is "emotionally blackmailing" the "us" of the syllogism. If this is somehow a misrepresentation of my opponent's argument I ask that they establish such in the second round, until then I will proceed with this interpretation.I'm dropping this tangent since race has nothing to do with the subject.
P1: You desire to liveP2: Others desire to liveCon: Allowing one another to live fulfills both desiresThis does not extend the veracity of both premises. That is my desire to live is discrete from another's desire to live. I can kill you, for example, and that wouldn't affect either of our desires to live. Up until the point I kill you, you desire to live. They are not necessarily connected, unlike my previous example.
If this self-identification is different experientially, then it is impossible for it to meet a psychological, behavioral, social, cultural standard. Because the individual's identification is naturally reflexive--as I mentioned above. And therefore there is no way to identify or treat someone according to any standard that isn't subject to the individual's whims and preferences.
We ARE NOT arguing over "civil rights;" we ARE NOT arguing over the notion of "equality"; we ARE NOT arguing over treating transgenders "better" or "worse"; we ARE NOT arguing over treating transgenders with "respect" or a lack thereof; we ARE NOT even arguing over whether or not they are the "sex" with which they were born. The focus of this debate centers on the proposition argued by my opponent: "Trans-people are, and ought to be treated, as the gender they identify as."
Gender - "n. the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and sex reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, WHEREAS gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female
- What is the self?
- Why is the self individual?
- Why the self can't be gendered?
A: They are distinguishable via self-identification - they are different experientially.
Simiarly, gender is something that can only be seperated by one's internal and experiential identification of their gender - what distinguishes them is inherently individual
A: Yes - you treat that indiviudal as they tell you they sense it
Full respect for thinking someone ultimately won, and also that another vote in their favor was BS.
A lot of people can't accept that basic duality, and instead subscribe to bad virtue ethics.
I'm not suggesting you use a million words. I'm not suggesting that you didn't read and judge appropriately. I am saying that you have to show how you evaluated some individual arguments in the debate and give some attention to specific points made by each side. That's part of the Voting Policy on this site. You don't have to like it, but if you want to vote, you must abide by it.
The debate was read and judged appropriately.
If I had presented a million word analysis, my vote would still have been the same.
Something of a sham voting system if all it takes to remove a vote is for someone to whinge.
It is the content of the debate that should be judged, not the content of the vote.
Thank you.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con.
>Reason for Decision: As one might of expected, technicality exceeded the necessity of "ought".
Though in the end stoicism triumphed over emotion anyway.
In all honesty, Pro shouldn't expect to win this particular contest. Hoisted by their own petard, as it were.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This is a vague justification for a vote. The voter simply says that certain general points won out over other points and claims that one side was "[h]oisted by their own petard," which doesn't sufficiently explain the decision. This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro.
>Reason for Decision:
NOTE: This is a vote to TIE the debate. Feel free to delete this when Zed-victor's vote has been deleted.
RFD in comments
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2978/comment-links/39375
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2978/comment-links/39376
>Reason for Mod Action:
While attempting to counter a perceived vote bomb (which indeed is under review), you created such a clear vote bomb that it doesn't even need discussion in the moderator channel.
Seriously, just tag the vote moderators in a comment as a reminder of your report, and if you want to be really good about it say why you believe a vote falls short of the standard.
As is your vote violates the outside content clause, by being based upon another vote (even to counter it).
**************************************************
Seldiora, I'm sure you've been told this numerous times, but I'll repeat it one more time. It is neither your responsibility nor your prerogative to regulate how one votes. If you have a problem with zedvictor's vote, then you report it. If your report receives no response, then you attempt to reach a moderator through direct message; if you don't reach a moderator through direct message, then you attempt to contact zedvictor and persuade him to provide a sufficient RFD, or have his vote removed. If none works, then you have to deal with it. You shouldn't vote against someone because you dislike someone else's vote. Your conduct is an example of the reason this voting system sucks, for lack of a better term.
Second, there's nothing scientifically substantial about PRO's argument. PRO attempts to make a correlation between the physical structure of the hypothalamic region of the brain and one's gendered identity. I asked him a simple question: "what is a 'gendered' identity?" He refused to answer this question because he and I both knew that his description would conform to gender and sex based stereotypes. Hence his oft repetition of gender being experienced "individually." But if gender is experienced individually, then his data is irrelevant since its metrics apply fixed sex-based categorizations and standards--i.e. male and female brains.
And you need to read more carefully: I stated twice the exclusions of this debate ("We ARE NOT arguing over "civil rights;" we ARE NOT arguing over the notion of "equality"; we ARE NOT arguing over treating transgenders "better" or "worse"; we ARE NOT arguing over treating transgenders with "respect" or a lack thereof; we ARE NOT even arguing over whether or not they are the "sex" with which they were born.") I haven't argued that the brain and mind causes an ambiguity to occur. I stated that the abstractness of the mind and the quality by which it is reflexively aware makes it impossible for it to conform to social grouping standards, much less biological ones. Identity is essentially an individual abstract and unique to each subject. I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED all this.
"Because Pro's case is extremely unclear on a socially offensive side. Pro must tell me what it means to treat them as the gender they identify as."
Exactly. PRO never answers what it means to treat someone as the gender with which they identify. And he hasn't done so because, as I had already demonstrated, he couldn't even IDENTIFY what a gendered identity was.
Now I haven't blocked you this time out of courtesy. But the next time you indulge your personal crap in debates to which I'm party, I will. Enjoy the rest of your night, sir.
Con however counters that the hypothalamus functions does not mean there is a distinguishable gender identity. The loose connection with experiencing stress, depression, anxiety, etc. is not inherently associated with the "non-treatment as identification". He doesn't say it out right, but I understand he means that *mistreatment* (pro's case) is different from the respect of the gendered identity. He repeats that Pro is using strawmen, because the studies have "fixed standards of sex" -- therefore the individual experiences contradict such. Con seems to have missed out that the disrespect of transgender overall had led to the slippery slope of bullying and suicide, rather than the extremely specific use of pronouns. I cannot buy that Pro's case merely considers that the correct pronoun is used, as the treatment of transgender people includes acceptance of them as well. Con continues after pro's forfeit to say that the individual identity cannot be gendered. There is no clear standard since only the individual's identification can loosely highlight the gender.
Pro counters aggressively telling that the oxytocin with brain chemicals must form the identity. He adds that the brain matches the person's identification, clearing up any ambiguous standards. The experience did not lead to the change of gender. In addition, he adds that the psychology is inherent within the neurology, and that the comparisons means that the individuality must lead to the gender types. Finally, pro stands on the idea that gender is the exact experience of reality, rather than preference.
Con closes up by saying that the distinction between sex and gender were made. The implied conclusion of gender identity I buy, but he misses out in the psychology and neurology correlation. The idea is that the psychology can speak to how neurology can work. However, he comes back around to talking about how the specific wording of pronouns can't be equivalent to all the negative impacts that Pro lists. He tells them that the ending result is that the individual decision of gender is the way to go, and that there is still very little way to judge the standards of the transgender.
I have a bias towards pro's case, however, even setting aside what I already know, I can tell the two are talking over each other. Con tackles very basics and tries to argue the idea that the self identity must be separate from the biological sense. After all, we can only socially treat them as what they claim to identify as, regardless of what they actually are. However, Con doesn't seem to realize the power behind the biological evidence, and glances over by trying to muddle lines without telling us why the results don't matter. He says the hypothalamus doesn't clearly list the gendered trait, yet there is clearly dropped, the oxytocin and CRH evidence to demonstrate a role in maintaining the identity. On the other hand, Pro's case misses out on the "treatment as gender they identify as", partially losing to Con's reducto ad absurdum, without telling us why. Yes, it's basic manners without a clear cut impact. But give us the emotion. Tell us the story. Bring it whole and put a box around the mistreatment that you believe Con is vouching for. You put so much concentrated effort to demolish Con's basic mistakes that you didn't realize the Social Keypoint to the debate. Yes, I buy that you are winning scientifically. But are you winning socially? This is the key point to the debate.
Because there is only two days left and moderators do not seem to be able to review Zedvictor's poorly made vote, I will be using enough points to tie this debate. I can buy that Con is slightly winning in terms of the absurdity that the neglect of a person's pronouns would lead to horrifying impacts. Yet I can't buy that the biological support is unsubstantiated, especially since the psychological link is clearly there in the correlation. To con, I recommend him bring more juice to fully tell us just why the brain and the mind cause the ambiguity to occur. Tell us why this unclearness means that you can't treat people as they desire their identity to be. Tell me outright that Pro is mistaking Mistreatment (bullying, shaming) with mere impoliteness. Because Pro's case is extremely unclear on a socially offensive side. Pro must tell me what it means to treat them as the gender they identify as. Does this include Con's reducto ad absurdum? Why or why not? Make a stance. Tell me the principle of why it matters. Why the small details can gradually lead to disastrous results.
Pro opens up with a lot of scientific evidence backing the transgender people's brain identity, added with clear impact that stigmatizing them will lead to depression and suicide. This is an excellent opening, but opens up cans of worms to the interpretation of "treated as gender they identify as".
Indeed, as Con counters, the Hypothalamus function may not be mainly concerning identity, especially since the brain and mind may be separate. Secondly, Con tries to point out that the "individual" is more than just the personal experience, but also the values, emotions and perspectives. The idea that "desire to live" is conflicting with the example of "treating as someone's race" which may be confusing in the end. Con's argument is a muddled twister that's relatively complex and hard to untangle, so I'll try to explain more with round 2.
Pro continues the idea that the gender dysphoria is clearly regulated by CHR, with the key hormone for gender identity. Furthermore, he shows that it's responsible for the gender identity, which links to the idea that the gender is identifiable via the self. Thus, the con principle of abstract thought is too ambiguous. So the "emotional blackmail" works in a way that basically shows you can't accept the harm presented with the bullying. The denial of the personal identity can lead to the bullying and cause damage.
A vote is a vote and reflective of ones appreciation of both sides of the debate.
If it is a dissertation that is required, then give me a day or two.
If you are a discerning person, then you should understand the gist of my comments in relation to how the debate unfolded.
I didn't read the debate, but I think a debate of this length deserves a bit more of a substantial vote than that.
*bump*
well then i guess i screwed up,
i dont hate french people btw
I'm French, too.
Not only did you forfeit a round, but you spent most of the last round attempting to insult me. And when I choose to present my affirmation of my counterargument is up to me, especially given that it had not violated your stipulation--the "second to last round" is NOT the last round. Furthermore, if you have failed to grasp the reason you have not and cannot meet your burden, then you have learned nothing. And it's apparent that you're not interested in learning the reason your point doesn't hold. Let the process play out, and disengage this useless contest of wit and stubbornness.
Thats not possible since Fauxlaw is french
I'd have to disagree, as someone who tangoed with Fauxlaw, he is a MUCH better debater than Athias - I think my point is made well enough, Athias liked to bring up brand new points on the second to last round - so yeah - even with that I still think he didn't do well.
Athias clearly won
bro he destroyed you
Well, I suppose that's something. Perhaps you could've "saved face" if you conceded rather than attempt insults. Enjoy your "hiatus," sir.
Come on that's kind of a dick move. You've quit debating, you're about to forfeit half of this debate and you're going to lose. Just quicken up the process.
"If I have the time to write it - however- as I wrote in my "I'm taking a hiatus" forum, I really don't have the time very often. I definitely don't concede."
Then will you do me the courtesy of writing "something"--however you wish to phrase it--in order to expedite the conclusion of this debate, especially considering that you have no intention of seeing it through to the end?
If I have the time to write it - however- as I wrote in my "I'm taking a hiatus" forum, I really don't have the time very often. I definitely don't concede.
"Nope - won't do that"
Am I to take it that you'll participate in the debate's next round (i.e. no forfeiture)?
Nope - won't do that
If you intend on conceding this debate, do me the courtesy of providing a short response of concession so that we may expedite the conclusion of this debate.
You've forfeited the third round. Is that a tacit concession to this debate?
Either way, I will still provide an argument for Round Three.
"Um... no - we have a shared burden of proof - you must prove that you are right, and that I am wrong."
Yes, I have my own onus. And I've chosen to negate your affirmation of the proposition by arguing in favor of individuality. That does not mean that every assertion you make stands until you're proven wrong. That's fallacious and I won't hesitate to point it out. I can criticize your assertions for their lack of substantiation (e.g. psychology = neuroscience) without providing a counterpoint. Pointing out and explaining the lack of substantiation is enough. My burden is to substantiate my negation of your affirmation. And I will proceed accordingly.
"There is no "have and eat your cake" there is a BoP that must be fulfilled."
I wasn't referring to our onuses. I was referring to your argument. You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Your supposed empirical arguments undermine your abstract arguments. But we'll flesh that out in Round Three.
Um... no - we have a shared burden of proof - you must prove that you are right, and that I am wrong. That's explicit in the BoP of the resolution. There is no "have and eat your cake" there is a BoP that must be fulfilled.
"Specifically? Your sophistry points, it kinda buys into your own hype, remember how I pointed out that RAA, same thing here. You need to lay your own framework better, as it stands, you aren't the best of formatting your objections nor tying them in."
Not necessarily. You're operating under the impression that I first have to negate and argue a counterpoint to substantiate my objection. I don't have to prove you wrong; you have to prove you're right. And you have yet to do so. I'm negating your point by arguing in service of individuality, an argument you've unwittingly help me make. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. No worries, I'll make this explicitly clear in our next round.
Specifically? Your sophistry points, it kinda buys into your own hype, remember how I pointed out that RAA, same thing here. You need to lay your own framework better, as it stands, you aren't the best of formatting your objections nor tying them in.
I’m not reading all of that. Who is winning?
Which of my arguments were "looser"? And did we debate this in the forums?
Wow - your arguments are even looser... I think you may be losing your touch Athias, your arguments in the forum were stronger than this.
I suppose time will tell. I'll point it out in my response.
Incorrect, I have not answered the questions in a way that satisfies you - I did indeed answer every question levied at me in the first round.
Interesting. But you have not answered my questions. Well, I'll respond soon enough.
"Wow - people think I have a temper but its nothing compared to yours, right?"
I don't have "a temper." My use of caps has nothing to do with "shouting." The comments section doesn't have an embolden function, so I instead use caps. In all cases, I use caps and the embolden function to emphasize a point, not to "shout" at what are essentially letters on a computer screen.
"Furthermore the fact that government treats black people worse? Yeah - that has literally nothing to do with this."
Where did I suggest this? Why would I bring up "treating worse," when I made sure to include it among the exclusions when first starting my argument?
"Furthermore, I didn't even mention anything about my argument in relation to yours - I merely noted that your argument regarding the function of the hypothalamus was quite superficial - just think some more."
Once again, I look forward to your attempt.
Very true
"Interesting for sure, but I definitely wouldn’t recommend going that route because of your line “distinctively male or female” and transference to philosophy, which is Edge’s forte. You probably have to bring it back to social theory or something to avoid getting refuted by Edge."
Edge doesn't have a monopoly on philosophical debate skills.
Wow - people think I have a temper but its nothing compared to yours, right?
Furthermore the fact that government treats black people worse? Yeah - that has literally nothing to do with this. Furthermore, I didn't even mention anything about my argument in relation to yours - I merely noted that your argument regarding the function of the hypothalamus was quite superficial - just think some more.
"Race and gender aren't comparable - we've been over this"
You opened the door when you made reference to multiracial individuals experiencing low self-esteem as result of a government form. If they aren't "comparable," you have exhibited poor methods in demonstrating that. And I do understand, or at least grasp, that which you insinuate when you made reference to the hypothalamus, but IT'S UP TO YOU, AND YOU ALONE, to substantiate it's connection to and qualification of self-identification.
And if you read carefully, I did not "assume" you couldn't do this; I specifically stated that you have "yet" to do it. Again, I welcome your attempt.
Race and gender aren't comparable - we've been over this - furthermore: I was referring to your argument of functions regarding the hypthalmus. Though that is also extremely superficial - you are not thinking internally at all with this - only on your own assumptions.
It's neither "weak" nor "superficial." I would intend for nothing more than to avoid a contest over sources, especially one where the citations are irrelevant and inapplicable. And no, my response wasn't "semantic," (which by the way is a useless jab given that the setting demands that we stipulate the definitions on which we base our arguments.) It's conceptual. For example, if I were to propose, "A person is their 'race,' and ought to be treated as the so-called 'race" with which they identify" the first begged question would be "how is this self-identification with this so-called 'race' identifiable to others?" And the second question is "how does one treat another in accordance to their self-identification with their so-called 'race?" So, how does one identify another's self-identification with gender, not sex? How does one treat another in the appropriate manner, keeping that self-identification with gender in mind? How do we standardize and/or normalize this response? You will have to answer these questions in order to satisfy your B.O.P., or more to the point, I will make sure to demand that you answer these questions in order to satisfy your B.O.P.
The transfer to philosophy is fine. The resolution to his proposition is necessarily abstract. Theweakeredge attempted to elide this in his attempt to link the physicality of the brain to one's sense of self. I have no intention of regurgitating other people's opinions, i.e. citing social theory. The route I've chosen is to compel my opponent to resolve his resolution by identifying the object of his prescriptive response. I welcome his attempt at refutation.
I mean, there's that, but I was primarily referring to how superficial his arguments are. If I don't have to do any more research to rebuke someone, then that rebuttal isn't all that strong. I'll do more regardless - but the core rhetoric here is largely semantic, which, doesn't surprise me.
Interesting for sure, but I definitely wouldn’t recommend going that route because of your line “distinctively male or female” and transference to philosophy, which is Edge’s forte. You probably have to bring it back to social theory or something to avoid getting refuted by Edge.
hm, interesting for sure... but weaker than I expected.
that's a lotta bold
First, you haven't seen anything from my arguments, because I've yet to submit one. Second, I do not need to "debunk" your argument, because you already have. I continue to drop hints, but I won't spoon-feed it to you. I'll say it again: remember your proposition; remember your definitions; remember your burden. Once you've appreciated exactly that which your proposition conveys, you'll realize that your burden is far more difficult than you thought. And it can't be resolved by neurological studies, or threats of suicide, and the like. But I'll make sure to explicitly point out the flaws in your argument once I've submitted my post.