Instigator / Pro
4
1480
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3549
"Trans women are women" Is A Valid Claim
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Novice_II
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description
I will argue that it is valid to claim that biological males who honestly identify as trans women are women in a least one reasonable sense of the word "woman". It will be my burden to argue that they can claim to be women and it be actually true. It will be the burden of the contender to argue that only adult human biological females can reasonably be called women, and that calling biological males "women" in any sense is unreasonable.
Round 1 will be opening arguments (Con will not be required to respond to any of my arguments until round 2)
Round 2 will be for rebuttals
Round 3 will be for closing arguments and closing rebuttals
Round 1
What Is A Woman?
Traditionally a woman has been defined as “an adult human female being”. One might be tempted to argue that since transwomen are biological males that, by definition, they simply cannot be women. The issue with that argument is that it assumes the term “woman” can only have one definition. That argument is flawed because secondary definitions for words that traditionally only had one meaning are common. I think the traditional definition is a good definition if we mean a "woman" biologically in terms of sex, but what about a woman psychologically in terms of gender?
Webster Dictionary states that if one has “a distinctly feminine nature” [1] then they are a woman, which is a good place to start for a definition in terms of gender.
However, I think we can expand it to:
“An adult human with a predominantly feminine psychology”.
This definition is a little more detailed and captures the essence of a definition we would want for a “woman” in terms of gender.
Words With New Additional Definitions
What are some words that used to only have one traditional definition, and now have another? One example I can give is the word “cloud”.
Cloud has traditionally meant “a visible mass of particles of condensed vapor (such as water or ice) suspended in the atmosphere of a planet (such as the earth) or moon”. It has other traditional meanings as well (referring to “clouded” judgement for example).
However, a newer definition for cloud is “a computer network where files and programs can be stored, especially on the internet”.
This new meaning of cloud didn’t emerge until 2006.
Was Ted Bundy Cold Blooded?
If someone were to ask if Ted Bundy was “cold blooded’ or not, the question could only make sense if the person who asked it clarified if they meant cold blooded biologically, or cold blooded psychologically. Ted Bundy was a mammal so he was no cold blooded biologically, but he lacked pity and empathy and thus was cold blooded by definition psychologically (he was a “cold blooded” killer).
In a similar sense, it is reasonable for the term “woman” to have a traditional biological meaning and a newer psychological meaning as the one I outlined previously.
Conclusion
I said that I will argue that it is valid to claim that biological males who honestly identify as trans women are women in a least one reasonable sense of the word "woman". I showed that one word can have multiple meanings (this is called a homonym) and outlined a reasonable definition of woman in terms of gender that can apply to trans women who are biological males.
Any claim that the term "woman" can ONLY refer to adult human females is making a false claim as semantic changes are very common in the English Language.
Therefore, It is indeed valid to say that "trans women are women" at least in terms of gender and the burden of proof on my behalf has been met.
Sources
Resolved: Trans women are women" Is A Valid Claim
- Valid: sound; just; well-founded:
Overview
- We are debating the validity of a propositional assertion. Proposition a is the resolution.
- To affirm the resolution, my opponent is burdened to make an argument that indicates the truth of this proposition.
- For this proposition to be valid, my opponent must successfully include every trans person in the world under such a definition. This isn't an assertion that some trans women are women, but that all of them are.
Proposition a is the resolution: "'trans women are women' is a valid claim."
- My propositional case for claim validity: For proposition a to be true and valid, all trans women must describe within the parameters of my opponent's definition.
What is a woman?
- Pro's definition of a woman is "An adult human with a predominantly feminine psychology."
- Does this include all trans people? The answer is no. Many transgender people certainly don't have feminine psychology and nevertheless identify as trans women. Just like the biological interpretation, trans women exist in all forms and mental states. Pro's definition simply tells that some trans people could be women not that trans women are women, making the claim "trans women are women" invalid by his own assertion.
- Secondly, what defines feminine psychology? This seems like an arbitrary ontological category for which my opponent has provided no criteria. If we have no basis to evaluate feminine psychology anyone or no one could be a woman and the category would simply be meaningless.
- Pro could posit that there is a strict testable classification of this psychology, but that would mean that any "trans woman" that does not meet such criteria would simply not be a woman, and such would falsify the proposition as true because it fails to include all trans women. In essence:
- p1. For the proposition a to be true pro's definition must describe all trans women within its parameters.
- p2. Pro's definition does not describe all trans women within its parameters.
- c. Proposition a is not true, and is thus, not a valid claim.
- Conclusively: pro must argue that "trans women are women," is in itself a true proposition, however, pro's definition only asserts that some trans women could be women, or that we don't know who is and is not a woman as he has proposed no ontological grounding for his case.
- As the proposition expressed in the resolution is false and unproven, the claim is invalid.
Extension of psychological classifications and differentiation
It is reasonable for the term “woman” to have a traditional biological meaning and a newer psychological meaning as the one I outlined previously.
- Here pro argues that we ought to define women psychologically in addition to biologically.
- Take the case that there are many men who on average have psychological temperaments that are closer to the average among women. There are both effeminate men and masculine women.
- Under pro's view, effeminate men could be women and masculine women by converse could simply be men despite having no personal identification or active will toward such. Pro would have to argue that an individual can be both a woman and not a woman, in itself a logical contradiction.
- Overarchingly, I argue:
- p1. A valid definition of a woman must differentiate between men and women.
- p2. Pro's definition does not differentiate between men and women
- c. Pro has not validly defined a woman.
Distribution of Psychology
- In addition, men and women are psychologically more similar than different [1]. In any psychological distribution between men and women, there is a large encompassing overlapping area between them and pole extremes that set respective modes. Take agreeableness or aggressiveness (images cited) as examples. Syllogistically:
- p1. To validly define a woman based on feminine psychology, an established methodology must exist to identify such.
- p2. Pro has not provided a methodology and can not identify such psychology.
- c. Pro has not validly defined women.
- Pro defines a woman as "an adult human with a predominantly feminine psychology." The empirical question must be what constitutes predominately feminine psychology when the majority of men and women psychologically coincide with one another?
B. Regional distribution
- Secondly, by what means do we evaluate this feminine psychology? The largest study on gender personality differences shows that "personality differences between the sexes are largest in the most gender equal countries" [2]. Could one be a woman in one country and become a man once they travel to another? Pro's case weirdly suggests this.
- Additionally, must we accurately identify the global average of psychological traits in order to define feminine psychology? In that case, the resolution must be false because we don't have this information yet.
- If we do get such information, that would make the average range of traits less distinct given that less equal societies have fewer psychological differences [2]. This would invalidate more trans women as women (as pro defines), and further prevent us from telling the difference between men and women.
Secondary definitions
- Pro brings up examples of other words that have different meanings such as the word "cloud."
- Conclusively, pro is trying to redefine women in a supplementary way to accommodate trans individuals. The biological conception is as pro acknowledges the traditional definition of a woman. Both descriptions: traditional and proposed by pro seek to categorically interpret reality around a range of characteristics predicated upon and around biological sex.
- To state it simply; pro is trying to supplement the ontological category of the traditional and commonplace definition of a woman.
- One could easily define a woman as a dog, but that would be futile and irrelevant to our discussion of expanding the criterion from which a woman is defined by biological sex. In a similar sense cloud computing and cloud used in weather fall under distinctively different planes of ontology and have no supplementary relationship with one another despite being the same word.
The biological definition
- As I have shown, each reduction reinforces the idea that the "traditional definition," as pro labels it, serves as the reasonable definition of a woman, and pro's definition is simply unreasonable. As a recall, we are debating whether or not "trans women are women," is a valid claim. The resolution fails; its proposition has been proven false.
Conclusion
I...outlined a reasonable definition of woman in terms of gender that can apply to trans women who are biological males.
- Has pro? Well, pro must argue that trans women are women. So far he has made a case that says:
- Some trans women could be women based on some floating vacuum of non-existent ontology.
- Pro doesn't know the criterion that makes one a woman: thus there exists no determining metric and anyone could be one or not one. In other words a vacuum of ontology. Meaninglessness.
- People can be women and not women at the same time.
Sources
Round 2
Con’s Overview
“For this proposition to be valid, my opponent must successfully include every trans person in the world under such a definition. This isn't an assertion that some trans women are women, but that all of them are.” - Con
First of all, this debate is about trans women not trans people in general. There are trans men that obviously have nothing to do with this debate about trans women. Thus, Con mentioning “trans people” in general is nothing but sloppy work on behalf of my opponent.
Most importantly, there is simply no criteria that demands that all trans people or (even all trans women) being women being a valid claim is necessary for me to meet my burden of proof. Even if *some* trans women being women is reasonable, then the burden of proof has been met on my end. For example, if I say “dogs bark” is a valid claim, that is not the same as saying that “*all* dogs bark” is a valid claim. It is a true statement that “dogs bark” even if there are some dogs that do not bark.
Therefore, the completely contrived requirement from Con that *all* trans women must be women in order for me to meet my burden makes absolutely no sense and must be rejected.
What Is A Woman?
Con said “Does this include all trans people? The answer is no”. The issue with this statement, once again, is that we are discussing trans women specifically not just “trans people”. Trans men for example have nothing to do with this debate, thus mentioning trans people in general is nothing but a fallacious red-herring.
Also, even if some trans women are women then I have self-evidently met my burden of proof. Once again, “dogs bark” is a valid claim even if there are some dogs that do not bark. Similarly, “trans women are women” is a valid claim even if there were some trans women who are not women.
Con simply doesn't hit his desired target here from a logical standpoint.
I have also been challenged to define what a feminine psychology is. This is rather simple, as we are talking about “the underlying general mental states that are typically found in females in comparison to males”.
It is well known that females in general have, in general, a different psychology than males typically. There is an article called “Understanding Female Psychology”[1] which discusses this in length. Many journals discuss this too such as “The Psychology of Women Quarterly” [2].
It has been shown scientifically that biological males who honestly identify as trans women have a predominantly feminine psychology based on their brain activity that is actually closer to typical biological females than typical biological males[3].
In summary, I have outlined a clear and reasonable definition of woman in terms of gender which those trans women who identify as woman clearly satisfy… My burden of proof in this debate has been clearly met without any shadow of a reasonable doubt.
Now, the traditional definition of “woman” is still valid as long as it’s known we are talking about women *biologically* rather than*psychologically*.
Extension of psychological classifications and differentiation
“Pro would have to argue that an individual can be both a woman and not a woman, in itself a logical contradiction.” - Con
Such a thing would only be a contradiction if one was to commit a basic fallacy of equivocation. It is not a contradiction, for example, to say “Ted Bundy was not cold blooded, and he was cold blooded” because we are talking about two completely different meanings of the term “cold blooded”. Ted Bundy was not cold blooded biologically (as he was a mammal) but he was coldblooded psychologically (as he lacked empathy). Thus, the statement “Ted Bundy was not cold blooded, and he was cold blooded” is certainly not a contradiction. Again, it would only be a contradiction if by “cold blooded” we were talking about *the exact same definition*.
Similarly, to say some women are not women is a completely valid claim as long as we understand that we are using two different definitions of the term “woman”.
Some biological women are not psychological women, and some biological men are psychological women.
It really is that simple.
Distribution of Psychology
“men and women are psychologically more similar than different”– Con
This point is obviously true, and wholly irrelevant.
There are more similarities than differences when comparing a Granny Smith apple to a McIntosh apple as well, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t noticeable and measurable differences.
Con, once again, completely misses the mark.
Regional distribution
“The largest study on gender personality differences shows that "personality differences between the sexes are largest in the most gender equal countries”. Could one be a woman in one country and become a man once they travel to another? Pro's case weirdly suggests this.' - Con
Con’s logic here is extremely bizarre.
The study was pertaining to the people in that region, not the actual piece of land. Thus, travelling to another piece of land would not change anything as that person in the study would still be the same person. Thus, the idea that my definition suggests that one’s changes gender just because of a region change severely misunderstands my case and the study he mentions.
Secondary definitions
“To state it simply; pro is trying to supplement the ontological category of the traditional and commonplace definition of a woman.” - Con
This could not be farther from the truth and completely shows a misunderstanding of the case that I am making.
The definition of woman pertaining to biology (“an adul thuman female being”) still remains completely valid and intact despite any psychological definition of woman that can also be used. I am not advocating for any replacement or supplement at all; that is clearly a straw-man.
“One could easily define a woman as a dog, but that would be futile and irrelevant to our discussion of expanding the criterion from which a woman is defined by biological sex.” - Con
A dog is a different species and has nothing to do with human femininity or anything to do with womanhood so this comparison is certainly not based on any charitable interpretation of my case by any means.
If Con does not like the “cloud” comparison let us stick with “cold blooded’. The term “cold blooded” psychologically is related to the term “coldblooded” biologically, as biologically cold blooded animals tend to not have any empathy or pity when they hurt another animal, while animals that are warm blooded (like chimps) do show empathy and pity. Ted Bundy might not have been cold blooded biologically, but he certainly was psychologically. Similarly, Caitlyn Jenner may not be a woman biologically, but she certainly is psychologically.
Thus, Con has failed to even come close to meeting his burden of proof. He has given us no reason at all to think that only a biological definition for “woman” is valid and not a psychological definition.
The Biological Definition
As I have shown, some terms can have multiple meanings, some (like “cold blooded”) have a biological and psychological meaning. Con has given us absolutely no reason to suggest that only the biological definition is valid when there are terms that have both biological and psychological meanings. What makes the term “woman” so special that it can *only* have a biological meaning? Absolutely nothing. I have proven that it is completely valid to claim that “trans women are women” it at least one sense of the word (a psychological sense in terms of gender). Therefore, the resolution has been established.
Conclusion
Con’s responses have been severely disappointing as they don’t come close to accurately describing my case and he engages is many basic logical errors in a failed attempt to take down my case. Even more disappointingly, he doesn’t even attempt to argue for his side that only a biological definition for women is valid; he only attempts to take my case down while refusing to make one of his own.
It is very concerning that he criticizes my definition for not including “all trans people” which is absolutely absurd as we aren’t discussing all trans people; just trans women (trans men have nothing to do with this discussion). Also, any claim that is made in terms of generalities doesn’t require it to be true for every case. Therefore, his assertion that my claim must be true for all trans women is confusing to say the least. Again, “dog’s bark” is valid claim even if it is false that all dogs bark.
I have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that under are reasonable definition of “woman” (in terms of gender and not sex), that “transwomen are women” is a valid claim. It is still valid that they are not women in terms of biology, but that does not mean it invalid to claim they are women in terms of psychology.
Therefore, my burden of proof has been met in this debate and the resolution has been established.
Con has failed to even try to meet his burden of proof.
Sources
Overview
- Our resolution is 'trans women are women is a valid claim. Pro's burden is to prove this proposition true, my burden is to prove it false.
- This is not some trans women could be women, but that all trans women are women. With the absence of specifications, pro commits himself to arguing that all trans women that exist are women under his definition.
- Do not let pro distract you from the resolution. If the resolution is a false proposition, the claim is invalid and pro loses the debate.
Openers
"dogs bark"
- Pro tries to reject p1 of my first syllogism but makes a very obvious mistake. Barking is a function, not an ontology. This is a case of teleology vs ontology.
- Functions are described with teleology, identities are described with ontology. A teleological claim will be rationally valid if it is grounded in a reasonable interpretation of an organism's ontological classification. In essence, teleology depends on ontology.
- When you assert that trans women are women you state that all trans women fall under the same ontological category you have defined. In a similar sense, if you assert tigers are cats, you argue that every tiger that exists falls under the feline taxonomy.
- The correct analogy would be with the claim dogs are canids. This means that every dog that exits is of the canidaes family.
- Therefore, if even one trans person in the world does not fall under pro's definition, he has not met his burden of proof.
Notes
- Remember, we don't even know who falls under pro's definition.
- Pro has not given a methodology or criteria for his "feminine psychology." This could mean anything. As long as this remains the case the resolution fails as we simply don't know who is and who is not a woman. Pro's definition does not show that "trans women are women," is a valid claim. It asserts that some trans women may or may not be women and we have no idea which is which.
- Pro seems to concede that his definition does not apply to all trans women. There are trans women in all forms of mental states that pro has not accounted for. Frankly, we don't know how many trans women it applies to. Pro has not told us what "predominately feminine psychology" is and has shown no evidence all trans women possess such within a methodology. The resolution fails in every aspect.
What Is A Woman?
underlying general mental states that are typically found in females in comparison to males
- These are words that don't say anything. What is the methodology within this that decides what makes one a woman or not? Which mental states? How many?
- What is a "predominately" female psychology? Which traits are required to be possessed, and to what degree does it become predominant? Pro has no ontological grounding for what he asserts here. This could mean anything.
- The source pro cites is really bad. It talks about topics from Myers-Briggs tests to alpha vs beta females. It provides nothing useful. Is pro saying that anyone who doesn't have a certain Myers-Briggs personality type isn't a woman?
even if some trans women are women then I have self-evidently met my burden of proof
- False. The claim is that "trans women," are women not some trans women are women. Some could be 2 people.
- Pro has not proven that a single trans woman is a woman based on his definition because his classification of "feminine psychology" floats in a meaningless ontology.
Extension of psychological classifications and differentiation
"It is not a contradiction"
- Like the cloud example, these are distinctively different ontological planes. Our conception of women is of the same ontology. We seek to characterize individuals based on characteristics predicated upon the female sex.
- Pro's definition is supplementary in nature. It is constructed around the same mode of ontology as the biological definition. If pro denies this his definition is ontologically meaningless and has the same justification as defining women as cats. Arbitration.
- It is a contradiction to affirm the negation of a proposition within the same ontology. If pro is creating a new ontology he is simply not defining women but some random ungrounded metaphysical value. Conclusively:
- Pro posits his definition should secondary the traditional definition of woman.
- Pro's definition falls under the same ontology as the traditional one.
- If pro's definition falls under the same ontology it ought to include all women not just trans women.
- Pro uses examples of homonyms that have distinctively different ontologies. To be consistent with his definition of woman, he must deny any ontological relationship.
- If so, he is not defining a woman but a meaningless metaphysical object and loses any justification.
Distribution of Psychology
- Pro drops my argument here. I extend it.
- Pro hones in on the fact that "men and women are psychologically more similar than different" and does not respond/object to any of my premises.
- Distributions of gendered psychological traits overlap in paradigm, and have extreme minor outliers set the modes. As stated, the empirical question is what constitutes predominately feminine psychology when the majority of men and women psychologically coincide with one another.
- As we know men and women are extremely similar and overwhelmingly overlap psychologically, there would be nothing that separates the majority of women from the majority of men. There would be no essential psychological difference.
- I extend my syllogism of differentiation between men and women. Pro drops every premise and thus my conclusion. As pro cannot differentiate between men and women with his definition, the resolution fails.
Regional distribution
The study was pertaining to the people in that region
- Correct
travelling to another piece of land would not change anything
- Pro takes the second path of responding to my point, insisting that the person maintains their identity as a woman while traveling to areas that have vastly different average gender psychological inclinations.
- This means pro is suggesting that this "feminine psychology," he describes is based on a global average and not a regional one. This makes my opponent's burden much larger.
- As stated: "the resolution must be false because we don't have this information yet." Pro has presented no evidence that shows the average global psychological temperaments. Given this, under pro's logic, we simply don't know who is a woman or a man.
- As countries that are less gender egalitarian have fewer gender psychological differences, this would reduce the modal difference between men and women, and thus pro's definition would exclude more trans women.
- Under pro's definition, we don't know who is or isn't a woman. Pro hasn't told us what a "predominately feminine psychology," consists of.
Secondary definitions
"The definition of woman pertaining to biology (“an adul thuman [sic] female being”) still remains completely valid and intact"
- Pro concedes the biological definition is valid here. We have a baseline. As I have shown pro's definition is invalid, he has currently not upheld his burden, and mine stands upheld.
Cold-blooded
- My response to the cloud analogy also applies to the cold-blooded one. If pro drops his argument based on my rebuttal, he must also drop this one.
A dog is a different species and has nothing to do with human femininity or anything
- Pro acknowledges that definitions that operate on distinctively different ontological planes are invalid to the range of traits we wish to classify. This refutes all his examples.
- Now, pro says we should not re-define dogs as women. So why should we secondarily define women with meaningless feminine psychology with no criteria, evidence, or factors?
- Should we define disabled people as people with body integrity identity disorder (BIID) who want to be disabled?
- Different animals as people who believe they are animals trapped in the wrong body?
- Even age to people who psychologically feel a certain age?
- p1. If psychology is not sufficient to add a new definition to ontological identities it is not sufficient to add a definition to women.
- p2. Psychology is not sufficient to add a definition to such ontological identities.
- c. It is not sufficient to add a definition to women.
The Biological Def.
- This was the summation of my entire constructive.
- Pro seems to say that I have given no reason to believe that the biological or traditional definition is valid. I have, and pro even concedes that it is valid here in quote:
The definition of woman pertaining to biology (“an adul thuman [sic.] female being”) still remains completely valid and intact
- I argued in round one that the reductions from con's position make him unable to show who is a woman or not show that the traditional definition is the most reasonable and valid definition of a woman. All other points are truisms.
- I'll place it simply for my opponent: The definition based on biology fulfills all the arguments I posit. Pro's fills none of them.
- Ontologically consistent and grounded.
- Differentiates between men and women.
- Has an objectively established methodology (sex: the biological reproductive role of human organisms).
- Does not suffer from all the reductions pro seems to struggle with.
- Con is welcome to challenge any of these points.
Conclusion
- Pro must prove that "trans women are women," is a valid claim. This means all trans women.
- Does pro's definition include all trans women? No. Pro does not even dispute this. We don't even know who it includes making it essentially meaningless.
- Does pro's definition differentiate between men and women? No.
- Is pro's definition ontologically grounded? no. Consistent? no.
- Valid? no.
Round 3
My Overview
If the term “woman” has two reasonable meanings (one in terms of biology/sex, and another in terms psychology/ gender), then the resolution is trivially true; and I have shown exactly why that is the case. Con must prove that proposition false to even begin meeting his burden of proof of showing that only one definition of woman can be reasonable, yet Con has not even attempted to argue that no other definition of woman could be reasonable and thus cannot win the debate until he does.
We Are Discussing Trans Women, Not Trans People In General
Con says “if even one trans person in the world does not fall under pro's definition, he has not met his burden of proof”. This claim is obviously false as we are discussing trans women not trans people in general. Trans men are trans people after all, but obviously if my definition does not apply to them that would not hurt my case at all.
Con then makes the odd claim that we do not know who falls under my definition, but of course we do. A trans woman is an adult biological male who is a woman in terms of gender and not sex.
What Is a Woman?
I clearly defined what I meant by feminine psychology and all Con did was say “those words don’t mean anything”. I am honestly baffled at such a non-response. I assure you, that every word I uttered means something. All one has to do is have a basic grasp on the English language to comprehend the words, either that or just use the dictionary to look up the meaning of the words. I urge voters to note that Con’s failure to grasp the meaning of words does not entail that the words have no meaning.
Extension of psychological classifications and differentiation
I already mentioned in this debate that if Con if doesn’t like the term “cloud” then he should attack my analogy regarding “cold blooded” as they are on the same ontological plane. The term “cold blooded” has both a biological meaning and a psychological meaning just like the term “woman” does. The term “coldblooded” in terms of psychology means to lack empathy or pity. This is trait is typically found in cold blooded animals like reptiles. This is a perfect example to show how one can be X psychologically without being X biologically.
Ted Bundy was not cold blooded biologically but he was cold blooded psychologically.
Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman biologically but she is psychologically.
Distribution of Psychology
Con dropped my refutation of his section here. He argues that there is more overlap than in psychology than differences but this point doesn’t have any relevance. Once again, there is more overlap than differences when comparing a Granny Smith apple to a McIntosh apple as well; that doesn’t mean there aren’t differences. It is the differences that matter here, no matter how small.
Secondary Definitions
Con made a quick modus ponens argument here. P2 is “ Psychology is not sufficient to add a definition to such ontological identities”. If this is true then “cold blooded” would only be in reference to biology and thus Ted Bundy was not a cold blooded killer. Ted Bundy was, however, a cold blooded killer. This is only possible because of a psychological definition added to the term “cold blooded”. Therefore, P2 is false. Cold blooded animals typically lack any empathy or pity unlike warm blooded animals like chimps, which is why this secondary definition of cold blooded in terms of psychology is relevant.
Con mentions people who desire to have missing limbs; this is not relevant to the discussion at all unfortunately. Trans women do not “desire” to be biological females, they just have psychological states that are typically and usually unique to biological females. Gender is not about desire like Body Integrity Identity disorder is, so this comparison fails.
What about people who believe they are animals trapped inside the wrong body? This would only be analogous to the gender issue if the person had the psychology of a wolf while being biologically human. There are literally 0 examples of this. If someone had the mental state of a wolf and not a human, then they would not sit upright on chairs their mind would instinctively push them on all fours, they would not speak the English language and only make wolf noises, they would be able to communicate with wolves, and they would instinctively attack animals and eat them raw. No human has the psychology of a wolf like some males have the psychology of a typical female. Therefore, this comparison isn’t even close to accurate.
What about feeling you are a different age? This is not analogous unless they actually are a different age mentally. This would only hold in rare cases down syndrome. They are an adult biologically but a child mentally.
The Biological Definition
“Pro seems to say that I have given no reason to believe that the biological or traditional definition is valid.” - Con
This could not be further from the truth. Of course the biological definition is valid as I have stated many times, my only contention is that the psychological definition is valid as well. One definition of woman is in terms of sex, the other in terms of gender.
Con’s burden is not to show that the biological definition is valid. Con’s burden is to show that only the biological definition of woman is valid as the debate outline clearly states.
Con has failed to even attempt to meet his burden of proof.
Does The Ambiguity of a Term Entail The Non-Reasonableness of a Definition Using That Term?
Con’s main argument here is that there is some ambiguity in what constitutes a “feminine psychology”, and that this apparent fluidify renders the psychological definition in terms of gender unreasonable. The issue with this argument is it is a non-sequitur. It simply doesn’t follow that because a definition includes terms that are somewhat ambiguous (the term “feminine”) that the definition is unreasonable. The word “universe” is defined by Oxford as “the whole of space and everything in it” [1] for example, and this definition is completely reasonable even though the word “space” is slightly ambiguous as there is much we don’t know about “space” just like there is much we don’t know about “femininity”. Is space discrete or continuous? Is it best described by Loop Quantum Gravity, or String Theory? Before Einstein, the idea that space was a bendable fabric wasn’t even considered. What is the point I am making? The point I am making is that even though “space” is somewhat ambiguous in the sense that we don’t know nearly everything about it and different theories about it contradict each other, that doesn’t mean a definition which includes it is unreasonable. Similarly, we are still learning about femininity and what exactly constitutes it but that doesn’t mean a definition of “woman” which uses it is unreasonable.
This fact alone destroys Con’s entire case.
Is “Femininity” A Valid Concept?
According to science the answer is “yes”. A study in 2015 concluded that “When examined as a whole, individual expressions of femininity reveal distinct patterns. These themes become reinforced throughout different social institutions such as media, education, religion, sports, and the work force.” [2].
Despite us not knowing everything about femininity, and their being theories about it that contradict each other (just like there are theories about space that contradict each other) it is a valid concept in the field of psychology.
If One Is A Man In Terms Of Sex, Does This Entail They Are A Man In Terms Of Gender?
Webster defines Gender as “the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex” [3]. With this definition in place we can see that the answer is definitely “no”. One can have the psychological traits that are typically unique to biological females without actually being a biological female. Oxford also makes it clear in their definition of gender that it should be “considered with reference to social and cultural differences, not differences in biology” [4].
Thus, Webster and Oxford make it clear that one might not be a woman in terms of sex but still be a woman in terms of gender.
This just further establishes the resolution with relative ease.
Conclusion
A “trans women” means, universally (not just “some), “an adult biological male that is a woman in terms of gender and not sex”.
Have I Met My Burden?
I have provided a definition of “woman” in terms of gender and not sex based on Webster and Oxford dictionary definitions. I have shown than any ambiguity in the term “femininity” does not render a definition which uses such a term unreasonable which was my opponent tried to argue.
My burden was to show that the term “trans women are women” is a valid claim in at least one sense of the term “women” as the debate outline states. I showed that this claim was valid in the sense of the term “woman” in terms of gender. Therefore, I have met my burden without a shadow of a doubt.
Has My Opponent Met His Burden?
Con never had to show that the term “woman” is valid in terms of sex and biology, as it is obviously valid and this was never disputed. Con’s burden was to show that the term “woman” could only reasonably bein reference to its meaning in terms of sex. Con’s burden is to show an exclusivity with regards to the meaning of the term “woman” and that no other meaning could be reasonable besides the biological meaning.
As the debate outline states “It will be the burden of the contender to argue that only adult human biological females can reasonably be called women, and that calling biological males 'women' in any sense is unreasonable.”
Con has not attempted once to meet his burden of proof, while I established the resolution multiple times over.
Sources
we are discussing trans women, not trans people in general.
- Semantics. I am obviously referring to trans woman as this is the literal subject of the debate. Voters can ignore this.
Overview
- Our resolution is trans women are women is a valid claim. Pro must prove that every trans woman that exists can be validly claimed to be a woman under his case.
- If the resolution is a false proposition, pro fails to affirm the resolution and loses the debate.
Dropped Points
- Voters can focus on these dropped points alone that show pro has failed to affirm the resolution.
- Pro drops his previous mistake of analyzing a teleological claim like an ontological one.
- This means as it stands if one trans woman in the world does not fall under pro's definition, he loses the debate. We have already shown this as truism as trans people exist in all temperaments and mental states many of which would fall out of "feminine psychology," even if pro told us what exactly this is. On this, pro has lost the debate already.
II - Regional distribution
- Pro fell into a trap where he was forced to affirm that despite large average gender psychological differences between regions, one would remain a woman if they relocated to an area where they don't have the average feminine psychology.
- This means that pro must argue that feminine psychology is a global average criterion. This would by truism show that pro has no idea who is and isn't a woman because the data that would differentiate between male and female psychology on such a scale does not exist. The resolution is epistemically unjustified and thus invalid. We don't know and can't know how many trans people fit under this definition. It is thus invalid to claim trans women are women.
III - Methodology and differentiation
- We have established that pro has given us no criteria for what "feminine psychology" is or means. He gave us a really bad (seemingly lazy/unread) source that talked about MTBI tests etc.
- Pro has not given X psychological criteria that make one a man or woman. Pro thus cannot differentiate between men and women.
- Conclusively: the claim "trans women are women," is invalid.
What is a woman
"don’t mean anything"
- Pro defines feminine psychology as "the underlying general mental states that are typically found in females in comparison to males." That could mean anything. Pro has not shown the specific criteria of mental states that make one a woman as opposed to a man. I even express this in round 2:
These are words that don't say anything. What is the methodology within this that decides what makes one a woman or not? Which mental states? How many? What is a "predominately" female psychology? Which traits are required to be possessed, and to what degree does it become predominant? Pro has no ontological grounding for what he asserts here.
- The verdict is that pro has no ontological grounding for his position. He has not given us there method that distinguishes between masculine psychology and a feminine one so that one could ontologically exist as a man or woman. This makes pro lose the debate on its own. His definition is incoherent as it fails to differentiate between men and women.
Extension of psychological classifications and differentiation
The term “coldblooded” in terms of psychology means to lack empathy or pity. This is trait is typically found in cold blooded animals like reptiles.
- Citation needed?
- Cold-blooded: (of a kind of animal) having a body temperature varying with that of the environment; poikilothermic. The difference between such and warm-blooded is how their bodies regulate body temperature. Cold-blooded animals like any sentient being have a range of emotions including empathy and attachment. Did pro even provide evidence that reptiles lack empathy or pity?
- We can conclusively say that a coined perspective of human emotions and the thermal regulation of body temperature are on distinctively different ontological planes. My argument stands unrefuted.
Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman biologically but she is psychologically.
- How do you prove that? How do you know Caitlyn Jenner isn't a psychological man? Pro has not given us a method to tell the difference.
Distribution of Psychology
- Extend. Pro says I drop his rebuttal essentially showing that he did not read anything in this section.
there is more overlap than differences when comparing a Granny Smith apple to a McIntosh apple as well
- The difference between these apples is physical characteristics and this is analogous to the biological definition.
- We can make distinguishing criteria with material characteristics, no one denies this. For gender psychology, it is nearly impossible to separate men and women by criterion.
- In the distribution, each human is an individual object. It is not to say there are no differences but there are no differences that would set a criterion between men and women where one goes from X a woman to Y a man because the psychological distribution has extremely large converse and extremely minor modes.
- My argument is that it is impossible to create a distinct psychological criterion, that evaluates a distinct difference between men and women, thus we cannot differentiate. Remember, pro has not even given us criteria as to what makes one a woman.
Regional distribution
- We discussed this in Dropped. Extend.
- Let's be clear. If pro's "feminine psychology," is not re-evaluated by region, it must be a global average. Pro has not given us this global average, and without this, we cannot possibly say trans women are women or that anyone is a psychological woman. This point is the debate.
Secondary definitions
- Pro tries to reject p2. however, we have already dealt with his case. Cold-blooded in respect to temperature regulation is on a completely and distinctly different ontological plane than a term coined to ponder human emotions.
- Thus, pro hasn't rejected p2.
There are literally 0 examples of this...
- Pro here repeats the exact same criticism of his position. He posits certain things one would have to do to have the psychology of a wolf, but does not do the same for women? This is of course special pleading. According to pro, a specific observable method must exist for animals, but not women.
- As long as we don't have the specific criteria of psychology that make a woman as opposed to a man, we simply have no idea who is or isn't a woman.
The Biological Definition
- The debate resolves that "trans women are women" is a valid claim. If this proposition is proven false, the debate defaults to con.
I argued (in quote) that the biological definition is:
- Ontologically consistent and grounded.
- Differentiates between men and women.
- Has an objectively established methodology (sex: the biological reproductive role of human organisms).
- Does not suffer from all the reductions pro seems to struggle with.
- I welcomed pro to challenge any of these points. Pro drops them all and objects to none. Apart from this, my job is to show that pro's concepted defintions are unreasonable.
- Ignore pro's lies about me secretly not meeting my burdens. Pro has failed to affirm the resolution and I have shown his claims to be invalid allowing us to default to the conceded validity of the biological definition.
Ambiguity vs ontology
Con’s main argument here is that there is some ambiguity in what constitutes a “feminine psychology”
- Incorrect. I argue there is no basis at all. I argue that there is no ontological grounding because you have not given us the methodology for the criterion of feminine psychology. This could mean anything. You have not given us parameters. You have not distinguished between men and women. My argument is that pro floats in a vacuum of ungrounded ontology.
According to science the answer is “yes”
- And what is the first thing that pro's own source asserts: "Conceptions of masculinity and femininity vary widely across cultures."
- Recall, pro said that traveling to different areas will not change your identity as a man or woman, meaning pro must argue that the criteria of feminine psychology that makes one a woman is based on a global average something that he can not substantiate.
- Conclusively, under pro's own definition, he cannot tell who a man or a woman is. This is the debate here. If pro cannot tell who a man or a woman is the claim "trans women are women," is invalid.
Space
- Pro makes a big mistake here.
- The universe is soundly grounded as everything. "It includes all of space and all the matter and energy that space contains." Space is simply a metaphysical property of the universe (see properties and relations).
- Pro however defines woman as an ontological category definitionally. So he is making a categorical classification of objects that is not ontologically grounded. Definitions are logically circular (P is X and X is P). Pro's ontological claim is expressed in its description. The description is its ontology.
- This is simply a case of properties vs ontology itself. The universe is grounded as a distinct ontology. Pro's definition is not.
Conclusion
- The conclusion seems like an obvious decision to me. The resolution is that "trans women are women" is a valid claim.
- Has pro proven that trans women are women? No.
- Has pro shown a psychological criterion that differentiates between men and women? No.
- Has pro shown us what qualifies as feminine psychology? No
- Epistemology: invalid. Ontology: ungrounded and meaningless.
- As we established that the biological definition is valid, and established that pro's notions of other potential definitions are invalid the debate defaults to con.
If I were allowed to vote, you would have mine hands down.
>>You were trolling according to your own definition by talking about me living in a fantasy land, Dunning Kruger, and other useless ad hominem inflammatory attacks. Also, look up the word "irony". The only one engaging in denialism is you, if you think about it. Why?...<<
"a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses or manipulating others' perception."
~ Making fact-based observations premised on your own writings (in tone, demeanor, etc.) and recognizing same as an observation is NOT "trolling." It is NOT "denialism" either. And it most certainly is NOT "irony" just the same.
>>...Well, Webster, Oxford, universities, and psychologists all acknowledge the semantic change with regards to gender *not* necessarily being synonymous with sex, and the term "woman" not necessarily having to be in terms of biology. There are tons of psychology journals that make it clear that gender, in 2022, is generally not regarded as the same as sex. A "woman" does not have to be defined biologically as ***the multiple definitions*** I provided prove.<<
I do not care what Webster has to say, since it has kowtowed to the liberal left mob in making nonsense out of previously crystal clear definitions based on actual scientific fact, and not emotive subjective bullshit.
Semantic changes have to be legit, not emotively driven with no scientific basis. Also do not care what psychological journals you refer to without citation since they are all, more likely than not, bastardized by liberal emotive drama and wokeism.
>>However, you not accepting this reality and thinking it is still 1800 or something is magically supposed to be convincing. Instead of using actual logic you just throw out words like "fantasy land" as if that is supposed to be an argument.<<
There is no reality to fantasy you clown.
>>Your whole case is based on an Appeal to Tradition fallacy, and can thus be rejected.<<
Easy to claim, harder to prove.
>>Conclusion? There has been a semantic change in the English language that allows "women" to be defined in terms of psychology and gender and necessarily not biological sex.<<
No, it has not.
Thanks a lot, I was afraid I would get a no vote tie. Also, I will get to your debates as there are many debates I will be voting on today
Just voted. I have several debates in voting too, if you could vote on those it would be great!
Much apologies for the sudden mention, however I need a last min vote on this hoping it does not turn into a no vote tie
You were trolling according to your own definition by talking about me living in a fantasy land, Dunning Kruger, and other useless ad hominem inflammatory attacks. Also, look up the word "irony". The only one engaging in denialism is you, if you think about it. Why?...
...Well, Webster, Oxford, universities, and psychologists all acknowledge the semantic change with regards to gender *not* necessarily being synonymous with sex, and the term "woman" not necessarily having to be in terms of biology. There are tons of psychology journals that make it clear that gender, in 2022, is generally not regarded as the same as sex. A "woman" does not have to be defined biologically as ***the multiple definitions*** I provided prove.
However, you not accepting this reality and thinking it is still 1800 or something is magically supposed to be convincing. Instead of using actual logic you just throw out words like "fantasy land" as if that is supposed to be an argument.
Your whole case is based on an Appeal to Tradition fallacy, and can thus be rejected.
Conclusion? There has been a semantic change in the English language that allows "women" to be defined in terms of psychology and gender and necessarily not biological sex.
"It is clear you are just a troll."
>> ROTFLMAO!! Thanks for proving you cannot refute anything I have put forth with actual emotional and intellectual intelligence. Since you are so fond of Merriam-Webster: "TROLL: to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content." NOTHING I have written in response to your leftist fantasy garbage was "inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive," but your entire argument and rebuttals meet that definition to the proverbial "T".
"I proved beyond any reasonable doubt ... "
>> Delusions of grandeur. You're a legend in your own mind, pal.
"Your refusal to accept basic semantic change in terms of "gender" or "woman" ..."
>> Thanks for affirming your denialism.
"Please be a troll on someone else's debate. There is no way you can be serious with arguments this terrible..."
>> You failed to disprove anything I've rebutted against you with. Your delusions of grandeur, fantasy island definitions, and psychological projection does not arise to evidence in support of your tripe.
It is clear you are just a troll.
I proved beyond any reasonable doubt based on Webster and Oxford that the resolution is true and you just repeat flawed fallacious arguments I've already debunked or just repeat the term "fantasy land" as if that is supposed to be an argument. The resolution has been established based on the third definition of "woman" given by Webster in terms of having a "distinct feminine nature". Someone having an X nature is often synonymous with "character" when talking about humans, and character is a psychological state. Such as "George couldn't help but be generous, it is just in his nature". The idea it circles back to the traditional definition is something you made up. Womanliness means having the general character that is typically associated with biological woman...Even if the woman is *not* a woman biologically, they can still instantiate womanliness and thus be a woman psychologically by definition.
Your refusal to accept basic semantic change in terms of "gender" or "woman" based on your political biases don't change the reality this change exists in 2022. This change is recognized in all universities and by psychologists (a small band of right wing traditionalists can't change this). Also, obviously a semantic change has to go through the peer-review process before it becomes "official" but the change itself as far as use goes before it hits dictionaries has certainly been over night.
Please be a troll on someone else's debate. There is no way you can be serious with arguments this terrible...
Where do I vote for you? You are winning the debate, hands down.
Not even going to repeat myself debunking your regurgitated fallacious arguments in that third response of yours. My 3-part reply to you stands as written. Nothing you have retorted with has discredited anything I've written. As far as I am concerned, this debate/discussion with you is over. Between your tunnel vision, lack of reading comprehension skills, continuous use of the strawman fallacy (among numerous others), and obvious penchant for the exhibited Dunning Kruger Effect establishes the fact that any further effort on my part would be a waste of my time and any measure of patience I have left beating a dead horse. It just won't get up.
Good day.
"Also semantic changes have happened instantly."
>> Nope. They do not magically appear in the dictionary or any other source. Applications are submitted. Those submissions are peer reviewed. Processes are followed. Rejections heard. Once finalized, then it happens. Nothing is instantaneous when it comes to the written word and their meanings. Change takes time.
"You literally just made up the idea that semantic changes need to happen gradually over time. There is literally no rule that states this."
>> Strawman. I never said those changes "[needs to happen]," and it is true.
-"The nature of semantic change
It is important to remember that semantic change is a gradual process. The meaning of a word doesn't just change in an instant, it can take many years."
//https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/english/lexis-and-semantics/semantic-change/
"Also, just because a small population are trans, doesn't mean that only a small population agrees with the definition change of gender. In fact, their are more non-trans supporters of this change than there are non-trans detractors on the right. This is just an ad populum fallacy on your behalf anyway."
>> Still using terms you do not fully comprehend, thereby using them incorrectly via a strawman. I made no such fallacy, and you completely misconstrued what I wrote. You Sir (or Madam) are a dishonest person.
"Your argument is fallacious as you assume one has to be trans in order to agree with this semantic change. That does not follow."
>> I made no such argument or assumption. I leave the [ass]umptions to you and those like-minded as you.
"In conclusion? Both Webster and Oxford make it clear that gender can be referred to in terms of a social construct and psychology and don't have to by synonymous with biological sex. WM even has a definition of "woman" that says "a distinctly feminine nature", which one can have without being a biological female."
>> you're not comprehending what you're reading and misconstruing the definitions to fit your agenda.
"Thus, "trans women are women" is a valid claim in terms of gender and the resolution has been established."
>> Nope. You're still living on Fantasy Island.
>> Not only are you lacking in reading comprehension skills, but you also lack in debating skills. That is not an ad hominem, that is a fact-based observation. Conversing with you is like beating a dead horse. Just one strawman fallacy after another with cherry picked aspects of your opponent's comment(s) that you "think" you can easily rebut.
"I specifically cited one of Webster's dictionary definitions of "Woman" ("a distinctly feminine nature"). So to say I "did not" is just a blatant lie on your behalf. One word can have more than one meaning as WM clearly shows. Even if "an adult human female being" is completely valid in terms of biology in sex, it wasn't the only definition given in terms of psychology and gender."
>> In your initial reply to me you did NOT cite any such definition; and in your subsequent reply you cited it incorrectly. I am looking at MW (not WM) right now on the other monitor...and it clearly denotes that quoted phrase as being directly associated to "womanliness." What does that mean? Hmmm... qualities or state of being traditionally associated with [a] woman. It circles back to the term woman; and [the] definition of a woman is "an adult female person." All you are doing, have been doing, is making a fallacious semantics argument. That dog don't hunt. So again, you did not cite/use it correctly, you just made BS up to fit your agenda. Only one lying here is you, lying to yourself and everyone else you are engaging on this topic. And I already said, which is common knowledge, what a word means depends on the context in which it is used. You do not get to cherry pick a subsection and claim it as a catch all for your backwards agenda.
"Also, in the real world, you keep committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy. This is a basic logical error. Maybe it isn't in fantasy land, but it is in reality."
>> No, I do not and no matter how many times you claim it will not make it any truer.
"It doesn't matter if sex and gender "have been" synonymous with each other, they are not now in 2022."
>> Yes, they still are. Just because liberals and the other loons have bastardized the definition doesn't make it fact-based reality. I bet you are a proponent of decriminalizing pedophilia and redefining it too, like many on the left have been moving towards bringing that slippery slope to fruition.
"Webster defines gender as "“the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex”. So if an adult biological male has psychological states typically associated with a female, then a woman would be their gender, just not their sex. It also doesn't matter if it is not THE main definition, as long as it is A definition then what I'm saying still holds."
>> I already debunked this. Not wasting my time repeating myself.
"MAIN doesn't mean ONLY."
>> I never said or implied that it did mean "ONLY."
"Oxford makes it clear that the term gender should be “considered with reference to social and cultural differences, NOT differences in biology” in their MAIN definition."
>> Should does not = must. There is nothing objective about their "suggestion," it's purely subjective in order to pander to others "feelings." Facts do NOT care about your feelings. Period.
"All you have done is just say "nuh uh your argument is fallacious" without actually explaining why it is fallacious besides crying "false equivalency" improperly on several occasions. Your argument contradicts basic dictionary definitions.""
Strawman fallacy. I have explained and in great detail. You just glanced over it and cherry-picked parts you thought you could rebut, but you failed. Epically.
My observation of your false equivalency fallacy is apropos, and your inference of me "crying" about it is rather sophomoric.
Main points to respond to keep this short.
1. A Semantic Change has clearly happened to the terms "Gender" and "Woman" as both MW and Oxford make perfectly clear. Oxford even says the term gender should be "considered with reference to social and cultural differences, RATHER THAN differences in biology" in their MAIN definition. Also, gender is certainly "associated" with sex, it just doesn't mean the same thing necessarily.
2. A Semantic Change isn't necessarily a REPLACEMENT but an ADDITION, especially in this case. The traditional definition of "woman" is still valid in the context of biological sex even if there are different additional definitions in terms of psychology, society, and gender.
3. A Semantic Change does not have to be gradual over time and there is no literary rule which states this has to be the case. There are lots of examples of semantic changes that occurred essentially over night.
4. There being a MAIN definition doesn't mean it is the ONLY definition. Other definitions are valid regardless of whether they are main definition or not.
5. Trans people being a small less-than-1% minority doesn't mean only trans people agree with this Semantic Change. The support for these semantic changes is largely supported by non-trans people and is actually common place in today's society.
6. Trans women have "a distinctly feminine nature" (one of Webster's definition of "Women") despite not being biological females. Therefore, in one sense of the term "woman", the term "trans women are women" is a valid claim and the resolution has been established. I only had to show the claim to be valid in one sense of the word "woman" not all senses of the word.
Also semantic changes have happened instantly.
in 1988 the term "web" only had one basic meaning, then in 1989 the word "web" referred to the internet.
In the year 2005 the term "cloud" had certain meanings, then in 2006 the term cloud expanded to also mean "a singular network of servers".
You literally just made up the idea that semantic changes need to happen gradually over time. There is literally no rule that states this.
Also, just because a small population are trans, doesn't mean that only a small population agrees with the definition change of gender. In fact, their are more non-trans supporters of this change than there are non-trans detractors on the right. This is just an ad populum fallacy on your behalf anyway.
Your argument is fallacious as you assume one has to be trans in order to agree with this semantic change. That does not follow.
Also, this semantic change is only an ADDITION, not a REPLACEMENT. Nobody is "fixing" the traditional definition it is still perfectly valid in it's own context.
In conclusion? Both Webster and Oxford make it clear that gender can be referred to in terms of a social construct and psychology and don't have to by synonymous with biological sex. WM even has a definition of "woman" that says "a distinctly feminine nature", which one can have without being a biological female.
Thus, "trans women are women" is a valid claim in terms of gender and the resolution has been established.
Just because you don't like that a word can have more than one meaning doesn't mean anything. This is just wishful thinking on your behalf.
To TWS1405.
I specifically cited one of Webster's dictionary definitions of "Woman" ("a distinctly feminine nature"). So to say I "did not" is just a blatant lie on your behalf. One word can have more than one meaning as WM clearly shows. Even if "an adult human female being" is completely valid in terms of biology in sex, it wasn't the only definition given in terms of psychology and gender.
Also, in the real world, you keep committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy. This is a basic logical error. Maybe it isn't in fantasy land, but it is in reality.
It doesn't matter if sex and gender "have been" synonymous with each other, they are not now in 2022.
Webster defines gender as "“the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex”. So if an adult biological male has psychological states typically associated with a female, then a woman would be their gender, just not their sex. It also doesn't matter if it is not THE main definition, as long as it is A definition then what I'm saying still holds.
MAIN doesn't mean ONLY.
Oxford makes it clear that the term gender should be “considered with reference to social and cultural differences, NOT differences in biology” in their MAIN definition.
Did you read that? Gender is in reference to social and cultural differences NOT differences in biology.
All you have done is just say "nuh uh your argument is fallacious" without actually explaining why it is fallacious besides crying "false equivalency" improperly on several occasions. Your argument contradicts basic dictionary definitions.
PART III
"Stop committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy, and maybe we can get somewhere."
>> Stop making unsubstantiated allegations and false equivalency fallacies and yes, maybe we can get somewhere.
"Now, Webster defines gender as: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
>> *sigh* That is the subsection (b) of sub listing number 2. That is not [the] commonly understood meaning of the term. Subsection (a) defines it as "Sex sense 1a // the feminine gender" Hmmm... looks like gender is being associated to sex. Same as definition (2)(b) does too.
"So if an adult human biological male has the "typical psychological traits typically associated" with adult human biological females, then this person's gender would be woman BY DEFINITION, even if they are *NOT* a "woman" in terms of biological sex."
>> Wrong. While MW made a grammatical error in (2)(b) - "... associated with one (sic) sex," it is clear what was meant is "...one's sex." As such, anything "behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits" that are typically accepted as male are associated with the male sex, and same goes for female. Period.
"I'm sorry you are stuck in your outdated views, but in 2022 the term gender mostly refers to a social construct based on psychology."
>> And I am sorry you lack reading comprehension skills to properly understand that which you are reading and citing as evidence of your argument, albeit incorrectly (as in, it does not support your argument because you are not applying it correctly on any level). And no, the term gender does not "mostly refers (sic) to a social construct based on psychology." Not even in the slightest.
"No trans woman thinks they are biologically female. When they say they are a "woman", they mean psychologically in terms of gender and not sex."
>> LOL! If that were true, then there would be no need for them to enter spaces, sports, etc. specifically designed for biological females. And yet they invade all those spaces under the claim that they are just as much a woman as the rest of them (i.e., they are biologically a woman).
"In conclusion, since trans women are women psychologically in terms of gender, then they are woman in at least one sense of the term. This holds true even if they are not biologically women in terms of sex. Both meanings of the term "woman" are valid in their respective contexts."
>> In conclusion, your conclusion is patently fallacious since it was based on an equally patently fallacious premise.
"Therefore, I have self-evidently established the resolution. "Trans women are women" is valid claim in at least one sense (the sense in terms of psychology and gender). They just are not woman in terms of biology and sex."
>> You've established no such thing. What you have established is your penchant for the Dunning Kruger Effect.
"Oh and there is no wishful thinking argument on my behalf that is a straw-man fallacy committed by you."
>> It remains wishful thinking, and no strawman fallacy was committed. Try again.
>> "I am simply going off basic definitions ***given by the dictionary*** itself. It is no more wishful thinking than to define a "road" as "an open way for vehicles, persons, and animals especially"."
You incorrectly used the dictionary, more than once, and it remains wishful thinking, and you're grasping for straws and coming up short.
PART II
"Semantic changes are common in the English language, and you are committing the basic Appeal To Tradition fallacy by stating that because something has historically been a certain way, then that is the way it should remain. That is a basic logical error on your behalf. Slavery was common place for hundreds of years, should we have kept it? Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it is the right way."
Yes, semantic changes do happen, but they occur gradually over time not in an instant. That is what the left and transgenders are trying to do, change meaning of words in an instant. That's not how it works. And society on the whole (i.e., the vast majority vs their 0.6-7% of the population) simply does not agree with their new fictional definition of a term solidified in history as meaning what it means. I am sure you are familiar with the saying that if we do not learn from our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat history again. Do you comprehend the meaning of that statement? Here is another one for you, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Both are rooted in what we learn and understand from history. So, if historically it has worked and there is nothing objective to contradict it, then it should remain intact as it is and commonly understood to be as. So no, I did not commit the fallacy you allege. Lastly, your comparison to slavery is an implicit false equivalency fallacy. We are discussing the meaning of [a] term (woman), not institutions like slavery. *facepalm*
"I gave a definition from the Webster dictionary that defines "woman" in terms of feminine characteristics and I expanded on it, and this definition had nothing to do with the person being biologically female."
>> Uh, no you did not. You did not cite it nor directly state you were using such a source for your given definition, which was obviously your personified version of it. Now you want to backpedal to the MW definition and claim you were using it? *facepalm* It's also clear you did not even look at the defined term MW provides for "woman." MW does NOT define woman "in terms of feminine characteristics," so you had nothing to expand on other than your obviously personified version of the actual definition given by MW. MW gives 6 meanings of the term depending on the context in which it is used, but [the] main definition is direct and clearly understandable (i.e. it is common knowledge): "an adult female person." That's it. No feminine characteristics.
"As far as the term "gender" goes, is not synonymous with "sex" or completely determined by sex in today's world."
>> In today's world? There is only one world today, yesterday, and tomorrow: the real world. Not Fantasy Island. And had you referred to MW on this term too, you would have seen a little history about gender and sex at the bottom that most certainly demonstrates how they have been synonymous with each other. I mean really, in order to know/understand what one's gender role(s) are in the real world, one must look at their sex to identify those roles.
"In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender). " - MW
>> Are the terms masculine/masculinity related to the sex female? Are the terms woman/girl related to the sex male? No, they are not. Not in the real world. Maybe on Fantasy Island, but not the real world.
I gave a definition from the Webster dictionary that defines "woman" in terms of feminine characteristics and I expanded on it, and this definition had nothing to do with the person being biologically female.
As far as the term "gender" goes, is not synonymous with "sex" or completely determined by sex in today's world. Semantic changes are common in the English language, and you are committing the basic Appeal To Tradition fallacy by stating that because something has historically been a certain way, then that is the way it should remain. That is a basic logical error on your behalf. Slavery was common place for hundreds of years, should we have kept it? Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it is the right way.
Stop committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy, and maybe we can get somewhere.
Now, Webster defines gender as: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
So if an adult human biological male has the "typical psychological traits typically associated" with adult human biological females, then this person's gender would be woman BY DEFINITION, even if they are *NOT* a "woman" in terms of biological sex.
I'm sorry you are stuck in your outdated views, but in 2022 the term gender mostly refers to a social construct based on psychology. No trans woman thinks they are biologically female. When they say they are a "woman", they mean psychologically in terms of gender and not sex.
In conclusion, since trans women are women psychologically in terms of gender, then they are woman in at least one sense of the term. This holds true even if they are not biologically women in terms of sex. Both meanings of the term "woman" are valid in their respective contexts.
Therefore, I have self-evidently established the resolution. "Trans women are women" is valid claim in at least one sense (the sense in terms of psychology and gender). They just are not woman in terms of biology and sex.
Oh and there is no wishful thinking argument on my behalf that is a straw-man fallacy committed by you. I am simply going off basic definitions ***given by the dictionary*** itself. It is no more wishful thinking than to define a "road" as "an open way for vehicles, persons, and animals especially".
When I am using dictionary definitions, they are obviously not based on my own personal wishful thinking. That is just an absurd claim by you...
"One term can have multiple meanings (this is called a homonym), thus there is no issue with biological males being women if by the term “women” we mean “women” *psychologically* and not *biologically*."
>> There is no un-liberalized (i.e. un-bastardized) term on earth that defines just "psychologically" for the meaning of what a woman is. Having said that, you are stating the obvious that words have multiple meanings, but those meanings are predicated on the context in which they are used and not how they are alike in spelling and pronunciation. So, no. You're wrong on this matter of linguistics.
"The resolution was trivially easy to establish, as it is self-evidently true in terms of gender (just not in terms of sex)."
>> Uh, no. It is not self-evidently true in terms of gender, or any made up perverted term for that matter.
Gender and sex are not mutually exclusive. Gender is predicated on sex, and sex is the defining factor of gender. Historically, and I mean historically, when a child was born and their sex was clearly delineated upon birth, each already had their path of who and what they are and what they were expected to do already set out before them. This obvious direction in life was rather apparent to the Vikings, Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, Muslims, so on and so forth. Any deviation in behavior and expectations innate to each sex/gender, they were then determined to be abnormal. This was common knowledge and accepted for centuries of our meager human existence on this planet until only recently when liberalism and wokeism sank its vampiric teeth into humanity.
"I am not disputing scientific fact here, ***only adult human females can only be women biologically. No matter how much a male mutilates genitals or feels feminine this male will never be a biological woman***."
>> Stating the obvious.
"We both agree there with the above, there is no dispute there. So when you say that is an established fact I agree! If you think I would ever disagree, you obviously haven’t been paying attention."
>>Oh, I have been paying attention. But your wishful thinking fallacy on what the term woman means is invalidated.
"Now, the point is, this person can be a woman psychologically, even if this person can never be a woman biologically."
No, they cannot. They think they can, but they cannot. It is psychologically impossible for a man to be an equal to a woman on the psychological level. The male brain will never be on par with a woman's brain and their respective innate emotions, thought process, level of being an introvert or extrovert, that mother instinct, and interpersonal communication skills, among so many other innate attributes of what a woman is in existence. So, you're wrong, again.
"Both meanings of the term “woman” are equally valid in their own contexts, just like both meanings of the term “cold blooded” are equally valid in their own contexts."
>>No, they are not. Maybe in your delusional fantasy land but not in reality (i.e. the real world).
"I only had to establish that trans women are women in *one* sense of the word not *every* sense of the word. Which I did…."
>>No, you did not.
One term can have multiple meanings (this is called a homonym), thus there is no issue with biological males being women if by the term “women” we mean “women” *psychologically* and not *biologically*.
The resolution was trivially easy to establish, as it is self-evidently true in terms of gender (just not in terms of sex).
I am not disputing scientific fact here, ***only adult human females can only be women biologically. No matter how much a male mutilates genitals or feels feminine this male will never be a biological woman***.
We both agree there with the above, there is no dispute there. So when you say that is an established fact I agree! If you think I would ever disagree, you obviously haven’t been paying attention.
Now, the point is, this person can be a woman psychologically, even if this person can never be a woman biologically.
Both meanings of the term “woman” are equally valid in their own contexts, just like both meanings of the term “cold blooded” are equally valid in their own contexts.
I only had to establish that trans women are women in *one* sense of the word not *every* sense of the word. Which I did….
Pseudohermaphroditism is when a person has the chromosomes of a man, but the external genitals are incompletely formed, ambiguous, or clearly female. Internally, testes may be normal, malformed, or absent. This condition is also called 46, XY with undervirilization. Didn't God know anything about quality control?
A human is made up of 37.2 trillion cells. Why would something be made of that many parts?
You simply cannot use a fallacious interpretation of a [concrete] term like, woman (women) that would in any way be equated to being [a] man (men) on ANY level of biology, physiology and/or psychologically. There is nothing for the contender to argue. It has been an established objective fact-based truth that women are women, and men are men (i.e., boys have a penis and women have a vagina and boobs).
The stark and intrinsic differences psychologically, physiologically, biologically and legally is paramount and cannot be simply whisked away by fancy semantics arguments that will not fly.
A biological man can never be a woman, and a biological woman can bever be a man. That is established fact-based reality on so many levels it isn't even, respectfully, funny!!!!!
Oh, sure, I remember you and have read your debates before. Great to have you!
I was known as "Rational Thinker" back then.
Debate.Org back in the day
Oh? Lot's of ex-DDOers here, including me. Did you have the same username on DDO?
Appreciate it! I had a huge presence on Debate.Org back in the day. I wanted to get back into online debates but saw the site is no more :(
I'm glad I found this one.
Welcome to the site!
The definition is part of my opening argument, and is a surprise.
Thus, of course, accepting this debate does NOT mean accepting my definition. The definition is the thing being debated... It will be the challenge of Con to argue that the definition I provide in my opening arguments is NOT a reasonable use of the term and only the traditional definition of "woman" (an adult human female) is valid.
I'll just respond here, as I cannot edit the debate outline at this time.
Male is XY Chromosomes (typically with genitalia such as a penis and testicles) and female is XX Chromosomes (typically with genitalia such as vagina, ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes etc.).
A reasonable definition of woman based on either a Webster or Oxford definition will be provided as *part of my argument*, that hopefully, I can argue include biological males.
It will be the job of Con to argue that the traditional definition of "adult human female" is the only reasonable definition of the term "woman", and thus ,"trans women are women" is an invalid claim.
Remember, my definition of "woman" has to be deemed reasonable by the voters. I can't just say they are mammals or something to cheaply win the debate by default.
I would be sure to define those reasonable senses of the word WOMAN in the description.
Please can you define male, female and woman for me to accept this debate.
To be clear I don't mean here, in the comments but in the official debate description.