Instigator / Pro
3
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Topic
#3740
The most fundamental 'enemy' and/or 'rival' movement of the MtF or FtM transgender movement/position is actually the genderqueer 'they/them' position/movement of LGBTQ.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1510
rating
4
debates
50.0%
won
Description
RULES IN DESCRIPTION, read before accepting.
No Kritik allowed unless the Kritik is to say they are overall the same movement, which I will be happy to prove is an illusion.
I shoulder the burden to prove that the genderqueer movement is in fact even more of a fundamental opposition and clashing movement with the transgender (MtF or FtM) movement and that their philosophies are actually further apart than the MtF or FtM transgender movement is to transphobic conservatives.
I accept the most severe interpretation of this burden of proof, I have it 100% on me, Pro. If I meet it, I wish voters to respect and vote regardless of what they feel inside.
The definiton of enemy and/or rival in the context of this debate is a movement whose fundamental pillars on which it is based render the original/other movement severely juxtaposed, hypocritical and/or critically implausible to uphold what it's actively pushing for and doing as time progresses.
A most fundamental enemy and/or rival can in fact appear to be one's closest ally. The appearance and even genuine unity with the enemy against the enemy of the 'conservative' types is not at all a clear-cut case against Pro's position and Con agrees to this when accepting the debate. Instead, the nature of the alliance needs to be proven by Pro to be fallacious and by Con to be genuine on a fundamental level.
I define the transgender position/movement as encouraging the libertarian/liberal taking of hormones, plastic surgery and even genital disfigurement in the name of enabling those with gender dysphoria to experience a fantasy lifestyle as if they were born with the characteristics associated with the other biological sex. The shifting in sex characteristics are physical and encouraged to coincide with an overarching shift in gender.
The genderqueer variant of LGBTQ as more the Q than the T that has, whether through deception or Con is free to argue genuine interpretation and understanding, come to believe that they are allied to the transgender movement...
I define the genderqueer position/movement as believing biological sex and gender being totally unrelated to one another. They believe a female can have a vagina and breasts and adore them and act as masculine and/or non-effeminate as she wishes, breaking all kinds of cultural norms for her gender without a single artificial drop of testosterone in her body, demanding people to see her as a 'he' and/or needing to whatsoever fulfil a 'woman' or 'man' role in the society unless she feels it natural to her (or 'them'). Other variants linked to 'they/them' exist such as e/em/eir and ze/zim vs ze/zir type genders but overall the idea is it's not he vs she and that the dichotomy is flawed.
Con agrees 100% to these definitions on accepting the debate, that is the consent given when clicking 'accept' and voters are to hold Con to them. I will accept 0 debate on semantics regarding those. I will accept Con to be either a conservative or a liberal for trans people or whatever they want to say their position is. Con is allowed to only attack and not even defend a position but I am free to prove they actually have a position and that it is incoherent even if they deny that they have one. My burden of proof doesn't mean Con has nothing to prove just that initially it is indeed on me, as Pro.
Round 1
I ask that my opponent not take me wasting a 30k char Round 1 on such a short intro as disrespect, rather after much deliberation I believe keeping my case poetic/rhetoric and concise is optimal, for my real substance will lie in how I take down Con's case. I will bring sources, in-depth exploration of points and all that in the Rounds to come. This is the strategy I believe will work best against the type of debater I am estimating the newcomer to the website, Con to be (I've read Mortem's 2 other debates and got an idea how he/she/they structures).
To prove that I've not just done this disrespectfully, I will close out these debate Round with 2 or 3 syllogisms (I'll decide as I reach it in typing).
After all, Con has a variety of 'greater enemies' to bring up and push as more fundamental, since neither side is denying that in actions, the genderqueers/genderfluids have found a lot of reasons to ally with the transgenders since they do share almost every enemy in the book... Except... TERFs and a certain type of conservative thinker as has been seen in the comments section of this debate.
The TERFs obviously prefer the genderqueers to the trans, since their fundamental gripe is with the idea that women (adult females) can or even should 'become' men to escape the pressures on them to act as 'women' in a patriarchal society and conversely that men (adult males) can or should 'become' women to act as a women do and be literally considered full-fledged women/females.
The conservative who is very pro-manly-men and pro-effeminate-women can actually at times be pro trans, what they are mortified by is the idea of a they/them gender and anything that would bend away from the gender norms. So, if you fail to be a manly man, they'd prefer you to become a transwoman then demand a they/them pronoun and deny you picked 'one of the 2' genders they see. I will leave this more mysterious for the next Round, so that if Con decided to hone in on conservatives as the fundamental enemy, I can then rebuke properly and in full and not waste effort on preemptive rebuttals.
You may wonder what my case even is then... I believe it would be best told as a story.
At first there were deviators, of course they began to get pooled in together. You had gays and bisexuals (back then pansexuals didn't exist as an idea because bisexuality itself was taboo and without things beyond binary gender to concern one's sexuality with). The gays+lesbians and their bi variants slowly realised that even straight-leaning or totally straight men and women (or even adolescents) were deviating in other ways and being bullied, isolated and even committing suicide over it. The way they were deviating was being 'not masculine enough', 'not feminine enough' or in some ways just not normal enough as a very competitive mathematics nerd is still masculine even if he's a pansy at sports and can't hold his beer well.
Then, of course, the asexuals aligned with the other 'deviants' (those with no true interest in sex even if they have some libido, they're happy masturbating until they die overall). It is no wonder why the left wing ended up with far more weirdos than the right wing ever did; it's because it is primarily Conservative ideology revolves around conformity and ridiculing outcasts (unless at the far-left communism which starts to do similar).
At these times, which were from the 60s snowballing through to the mid to late 80s, the movements had at least gained momentum in the west such that people started thinking about it. Is it right to force all men to act stereotypically masculine? Is it right to force the inverse on women? The very idea that individuality and original ways of dressing and acting are okay blossomed in the 80s, we all know about Freddie Mercury and his vibrant aura. This was the era of true revolution and pushing away from gender norms.
And so, so far, the idea of 'trans' just meant 'transvestite' as in one who dresses as a drag queen or butch women conversely. It also meant people who dress simply less typically, such as women donning effeminte trousers/pants rather than skirts and men with longer hair, ponytails, hell even mascara (yeah, heavy metal and hard rock types, sure but I am talking of a lot of deviation way beyond just homosexuality). The deviating from the norm became a thing to no longer shun around... I'd say only properly 2004ish. From what I understand it was the mid 2000s where truly it slowly began to be an idea that it's not okay to call a feminine-acting guy a faggot (yes, this was standard banter playground insult back then, I know Gen Z won't believe it, ask your older cousins etc). Then you had strange things happen like lesbians claiming the right to use 'dyke' similar to blacks with n-word while it being wrong for others to use (though somehow bisexuals and pansexuals that are female are allowed to use it even if they're leaning straight and aren't butch). The terms evolved, the society evolved and so did... science.
Now, the idea of transgenders did exist even from the 50s when it was more homophobic than you can imagine, let alone transphobic. Only those lucky enough to be born with genes that really did let them pass as feminine men even could do it (meaning you had almost 0 ftm trans but yeah you may have had a couple that passed as cleanshaven men or even who donned fake staches, the story of Mulan is more a story than anything real).
The concept of 'trans' was to be transvestite, as in you knew you were playing a role, you knew deep down you were still a male playing the role of 'lady' or female playng the role of 'gentleman'. This completely did align with the idea that biological sex and gender weren't directly related or in any way to be forced onto people.
The people doing it didn't hate themselves necessarily, it wasn't born out of trauma as much as 'fuck it, I'm a really feminine guy may as well play the part and people are too ignorant to realise I don't believe in genders so I may as well let them call me a she'. It was sort of an artform, acting if you will. Drag queens were proud of how much of a woman they could act as during their shows, butch women that eventually tried to act as men tended to like it far less (I don't have data proving this, I just know it). It was those women who just didn't feel very feminine that pioneered the idea of a they/them identity. Of course it's grammatically incorrect, in English we lack a non-dehumanising version of 'it' and there is no singular pronoun version of 'they' other than the specific he or she or I guess 'one' and 'the person' depending on context and sentence structure, for humans.
As I already said, science evolved and I don't mean psychiatry here. By science, I unfortunately mean specifically hormone 'therapy' (it's not therapeutic) and plastic surgery (let's not even go into surgery on the genitalia for this Round). It became a fascinating go-to solution so much so you can be cancelled and have your career ruined if you advise too strongly against it with a patient suffering from gender dysphoria and associated self-loathing issues that may be going on.
If you are being bullied for many reasons and one is you're not 'macho' enough, a solution suddenly was there... Play the role of a woman... Not just play the role... Pump oestrogen into your body and have plastic surgery to really be a woman, why not castrate oneself too? Sorry, said I wouldn't go into that. It wasn't just about 'bullying' it was about self-image. It was solely about transsexuality which became a taboo term to use even though it is very accurate to what was being done. These people, post-transition could be offended and traumatised if you dared notice their birth sex. They were no longer playing a role, it was method acting taken to the extreme and it absolutely played right into the hands of any and all saying that men ought to act in a 'manly way' and women ought to act in a 'womanly way' as defined by the very people who bullied them and drove their insecurities.
If you had a person tell you they hated being short, would you as a psychiatrist fear telling them 'you will never really be tall and you need to accept that', assuming they were past their growth spurt? You may word it politer but that's the root idea in therapy. If one feels a different ethnicity, age, weight (anorexia and bulimia come to mind) or even has deeply disturbing delusions like that their face is an alien mask and needs to be ripped off (severe schiophrenia), your job as a therapist is to help them come to a peaceful, happy-enough stated of mind with the reality and what their body is.
Why is it that everything changed with gender? That's not too important or the focus of my debate, I'll go into it in my rebuttals. What did happen though is a very interesting thing indeed...
One argues that gender and biological sex are totally unrelated and celebrates acting as non-masculine and non-feminine as one naturally is, regardless of one's body and genitalia, encouraging 0 overly artificial alterations in any overtly 'do it to feel good sense'. It has a middleground idea of 'they/them' gender for the extreme cases that really hate the idea of what the stereotypes are.
The other argues that they are intertwined but able to be the 'opposite' so much so that the morally correct way to handle one hating one's birth sex is to encourage them to play out a fantasy that they were born as the other one and live out their delusion.
RESOLUTION: The most fundamental 'enemy' and/or 'rival' movement of the MtF or FtM transgender movement/position is actually the genderqueer 'they/them' position/movement of LGBTQ.
POSITION: Con
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadmap:
- Preface
- Interpretation of the burden of proof
- Constructive
- Syllogisms
- Crystallization
-
Preface
Thank you, rationalmadman. No disrespect was taken through your short opener. I'm more than grateful to simply have the opportunity to debate a person such as yourself. I'm sure we will have a very interesting discussion—you claim you will show some contradictions within my position through the tutelage of your syllogisms; I really look forward to having my intuitions being tested within your latter rounds.
-
Interpretation of the BoP [burden of proof]
"I shoulder the burden to prove that the genderqueer movement is in fact even more of a fundamental opposition and clashing movement with the transgender (MtF or FtM) movement and that their philosophies are actually further apart than the MtF or FtM transgender movement is to transphobic conservatives.""I accept the most severe interpretation of this burden of proof, I have it 100% on me, Pro. If I meet it, I wish voters to respect and vote regardless of what they feel inside."
Pro has willingly offered himself 100% of the burden of proof—if readers remain unconvinced of pros' position at the point of resolution—that the genderqueers are the main rival/enemy of the trans movement, your vote ought to automatically be cast for me.
-
Constructive [against Pro]
Pro appears to have some rather weak premises. Which, through a little bit of prodding, do not stand very strong—I imagine this first round of mine will be rather short, as I will sufficiently fulfill my burden of proof with the usage of 4 syllogisms.
-
Syllogisms
I define the transgender position/movement as encouraging the libertarian/liberal taking of hormones, plastic surgery and even genital disfigurement in the name of enabling those with gender dysphoria to experience a fantasy lifestyle as if they were born with the characteristics associated with the other biological sex. The shifting in sex characteristics are physical and encouraged to coincide with an overarching shift in gender.I define the genderqueer position/movement as believing biological sex and gender being totally unrelated to one another. They believe a female can have a vagina and breasts and adore them and act as masculine and/or non-effeminate as she wishes, breaking all kinds of cultural norms for her gender without a single artificial drop of testosterone in her body, demanding people to see her as a 'he' and/or needing to whatsoever fulfil a 'woman' or 'man' role in the society unless she feels it natural to her (or 'them'). Other variants linked to 'they/them' exist such as e/em/eir and ze/zim vs ze/zir type genders but overall the idea is it's not he vs she and that the dichotomy is flawed.
==
Premise 1: Rational madman creates a divide between the transgender movement and the genderqueer position based on one believing biological sex playing a role in ones gender and the other one not — I must say, i find this to be some very broad strokes of stereotyping.
-
A1. syllogism
P1. Some trans women believe themselves to be women before presenting as women.
P2. not all trans women believe sex and gender are related.
C1. Not all trans women nor all sects of the trans movement believe sex and gender are related.
-
Syllogism one has shown pro has used some forms of fallacious forms of logic, precisely — stereotyping the trans movement. I would posit the reason why trans movements may be pro-surgery or hormone-taking. Has less to do with the appearance itself, but the expectations and acceptance that come along with ones appearance. In which case, if having hairy legs and unshaven armpits were viewed as feminine, trans women would thrive just as well, if not better, in such an alternative world. pro has no way of proving this line of logic wrong. If Pro is not able to disprove all my syllogisms, I ought to be declared the victor.
==
Premise 2: Genderqueer individuals believe biological sex and gender are totally unrelated to one another.
A2. Syllogism
-
P1. Not all genderqueer indivudals believe biological sex and gender are unrelated.
P2. some genderqueer indviduals believe their brain anatomy is a mix between male and female — causing their gender identity.
C1. Not all genderqueer individuals believe gender and sex are unrelated.
-
Within all movements, people possess differing opinions on how things need to be done. Even what the movement itself means. To use an example: Martin Luther King Jr. was part of the civil rights movement — just as Malcom X was. Despite being within the same movement, these two men had very polar opposite ways of accomplishing their goals. Malcom X wanted to see the separation of black and white peoples — while Martin Luther King did not.
-
Premise 3: The trans movement and Queer movement have opposite goals - one argues conformity to sex based roles, the other does not.
-
I have already proven this line of logic to be fallacious, borne of oversimplification and stereotyping. Even if we were to assume this was correct, The fact that the queer movement and trans movement come together shows they have a shared common enemy. This enemy then must pose a bigger threat to each other than one another are too each other. This then means there is some form of overarching enemy which contrasts more with both their goals than one another.
-
A3. Syllogism
-
P1. Nazis wish to exterminate transgender peoples or their ability to transition [1].
P2. The genderqueer movement does not wish to exterminate or stop transgender peoples from transitioning.
C1. The Nazis are a bigger enemy/rival to the trans movement than the they/them movement.
Premise 4: juxtaposed ideologies are biggest enemies
A4. Syllogism
-
P1. The trans movement and genderqueer movement are the most juxtaposed movement.
P2. The trans movement and the genderqueer movement accept their differences.
C1. Juxtaposed ideologies are not necessarily biggest of enemies.
-
Even if we take Rationalmadman's weak premises to not be fallacious but true, he once more has a heavy burden to bare. It appears to me [and perhaps to some readers] that two people with opposing ideologies can accept their differences, and that these differences do not automatically turn us into enemies nor rivals.
==
Crystallization
- All of Pros premises and subsequent arguments have been shown to be logically fallacious through overgeneralisations and stereotyping.
Round 2
I ask my opponent to read the description of the debate, it seems that he never ever read it yet accepted the debate agreeing to it.
My first four arguments could be described as kritiks, but certainly not my last two. You've opened up a debate with extremely loaded language, language so loaded to the point of it being internally contradictory. I believe I properly outlined this in my A4 syllogism. You are considering juxtaposed positions to = biggest enemies. This doesn't make much sense—your premises are simply unintelligible and contradictory. I would avoid kritiks—yet if someone wishes to have a debate, but they switch the meaning of "big" to mean "small" and "wide" to mean "thin". I would obviously have to argue this point.
There is still a lot of stuff there for you to respond to—such as my Nazi argument. It appears to me that you view the genderqueer and transgender movements as possessing contradictory premises. I consider this to not matter as much as having contradictory goals. Which transgender people and genderqueer people do not; each of these groups has opposing goals in comparison to the Nazis.
Round 3
My opponent has been banned for multiaccounting so I will give the full reply next Round.
Forfeited
Round 4
My opponent has provent o knowingly (as it's not a new member of the website and Ehyeh actually commented on the debate having read the description) ignored my description.
The description states the following:
RULES IN DESCRIPTION, read before accepting.
No Kritik allowed unless the Kritik is to say they are overall the same movement, which I will be happy to prove is an illusion.
I shoulder the burden to prove that the genderqueer movement is in fact even more of a fundamental opposition and clashing movement with the transgender (MtF or FtM) movement and that their philosophies are actually further apart than the MtF or FtM transgender movement is to transphobic conservatives.
I accept the most severe interpretation of this burden of proof, I have it 100% on me, Pro. If I meet it, I wish voters to respect and vote regardless of what they feel inside.
The definiton of enemy and/or rival in the context of this debate is a movement whose fundamental pillars on which it is based render the original/other movement severely juxtaposed, hypocritical and/or critically implausible to uphold what it's actively pushing for and doing as time progresses.
A most fundamental enemy and/or rival can in fact appear to be one's closest ally. The appearance and even genuine unity with the enemy against the enemy of the 'conservative' types is not at all a clear-cut case against Pro's position and Con agrees to this when accepting the debate. Instead, the nature of the alliance needs to be proven by Pro to be fallacious and by Con to be genuine on a fundamental level.
I define the transgender position/movement as encouraging the libertarian/liberal taking of hormones, plastic surgery and even genital disfigurement in the name of enabling those with gender dysphoria to experience a fantasy lifestyle as if they were born with the characteristics associated with the other biological sex. The shifting in sex characteristics are physical and encouraged to coincide with an overarching shift in gender.
The genderqueer variant of LGBTQ as more the Q than the T that has, whether through deception or Con is free to argue genuine interpretation and understanding, come to believe that they are allied to the transgender movement...
I define the genderqueer position/movement as believing biological sex and gender being totally unrelated to one another. They believe a female can have a vagina and breasts and adore them and act as masculine and/or non-effeminate as she wishes, breaking all kinds of cultural norms for her gender without a single artificial drop of testosterone in her body, demanding people to see her as a 'he' and/or needing to whatsoever fulfil a 'woman' or 'man' role in the society unless she feels it natural to her (or 'them'). Other variants linked to 'they/them' exist such as e/em/eir and ze/zim vs ze/zir type genders but overall the idea is it's not he vs she and that the dichotomy is flawed.
Con agrees 100% to these definitions on accepting the debate, that is the consent given when clicking 'accept' and voters are to hold Con to them. I will accept 0 debate on semantics regarding those. I will accept Con to be either a conservative or a liberal for trans people or whatever they want to say their position is. Con is allowed to only attack and not even defend a position but I am free to prove they actually have a position and that it is incoherent even if they deny that they have one. My burden of proof doesn't mean Con has nothing to prove just that initially it is indeed on me, as Pro.
Con knowingly agreed to this and ignored it to try and get a sleazy win.
I will quickly remind what I told in Round 1's closing statement:
Conservatives that support gender norms actually have a lot of coinciding beliefs with trans people and their movement. They believe there are men and women only and that one has to fill one of the roles, the only difference is trans support flipping around what stereotypical role one plays. They support completely altering one's hormones and bodily ways of appearing and being in order to conform to the gender stereotypes associated with the other biological sex than the one which one was born.
In stark contrast, the genderqueer movement supports never ever having to alter a single thing in one's body to be as feminine, masculine or neutral as one pleases. There is in fact absolutely no justification even remotely possible under the genderqueer movement's ideology that would enable one to say that because they feel very feminine but have a penis that they should take estrogen and remove the penis.
The end goals are also completely juxtaposed, one's end goal is a society of men and women where people can flip around, the other is a society of eradicated gender norms where one is always comfortable with what their body's born sex is and acting as they want.
Forfeited
Due to the forfeits it is an easy vote in my opinion but even without it, observe the description vs the debate.
Interesting read, in my opinion, I have actually had a trans person I interacted with admit I have a really good point and changed their view of what they are in terms of the mechanics of being a feminine male rather than the same as a ciswoman. They thanked me sincerely and were impressed.
The debate challenge is there for you 4D. It should be no problem for you since you're a mastermind tactician and inventor.
The drama queen here is very obviously you. There is a rule against discussing PMs in public btw.
Alright 4D, stop trying to insinuate that I'm other members in DM's, thanks. It's obvious what you're trying to do, you're a snake and a drama Queen.
There are plenty of high ranking debaters to call out that all think you are full of shit. You're only picking on me because I react so I will just stop reacting.
Idk what narcissistic issues you have but I am dont letting you spam my notifications, though I guess I will be notified for you posting to this debate.
why are you trying to throw shade that i don't respect descriptions, like you're not 10x the ego debater as i? debate me on your virtual reality bullshit and i will destroy it simply for your disrespect and hubris to the greatest mind ever lived for your nonsense.
Physicalism is the metaphyiscal theory that ultimately everything is physical. Both string theory and field theory are part of physicalism. Do you want to debate it or nah? most Gods can be ruled out in physicalism except pantheist conceptions. Although if it makes you feel better i wont argue for a pantheist god at all. Put all this in the description.
You have 0 respect for descriptions, be clear which physicalist theory you are backing:
Field theory, string theory, etc
is there a god allowed in your reality, to explain how despite all the chaos a completely unfathomable degree of harmony and constant 'laws' of physics, chemistry and biology are present in this reality?
Didn't I say I would argue for physicalism, rationalmadman? We can plaster it all over the description. If you think that's rigged, then I don't know what to say to you. You're simply in denial in case your philosophy is proven absurd. I would enjoy hearing about your 5D chess philosophy, which in your own words is "a genius way of comprehending the world and will let you comprehend the world in ways religions and other philosophies could not do." You also claim it will blow my mind, especially if I'm on psychedelics. I'm quite skeptical of these claims, and would enjoy to see you prove me wrong. If it were a truly revolutionary philosophy you shouldn't have to be scared about a poor resolution or the unlikelihood of it. All you're telling me is that you know other competing theories are better but this one "sounds cool and makes me feel unique and special to believe"
I do not debate in bad faith, I make crystal clear what my aims are.
Bad faith is to pretend you are there for anything other than winning and be there only to win. You cannot be openly bad faith, it doesn't work.
I have told you multiple times that I will debate in complete good faith if you remove the win vs loss aspect of it. Make it unrated and I'll explore but do I want to waste my time and effort on 30k chars per Round under time pressure on a debate so rigged against me resolution-wise? No, not really especially when I know you will play as dirty as possible to win and live in denial that you do so.
I will happily debate you.
You want a topic where you can bring multiple models of reality all wagered against simulation at once and you can fall back on them being equally probable while I need to prove simulation theory more probably than ALL at once.
That is inherently unfair and always going to favour you due to the structure of debating and limitations, that is if anyone bothers to vote on such a long and drawn out science+philosophy nerd debate.
Its also funny to note that your entire Discretionary rules are based upon the stipulative definition fallacy. Meaning the entire framework of your argument is based on illogical nonsense.
Am I really being told by the most openly bad-faith debater on the site that he's scared of my semantics games? I'm unsure what semantics games can be pulled on a simulated universe debate. The fact that you're not even opening the debate due to fear of a lack of votes shows where your priorities are. It's obviously not to challenge your own beliefs. All i see is you making excuses.
"all the top 10 debaters are scared to debate me" - RM
no, that's a huge debate and voters don't vote on that. I have had enough ties to know what I'm talking about and I already know you are a debater who has zero respect to be loyal to descriptions or agreed upon semantics, so I want a resolution/topic that's very specific and allows me to work around your trickery.
the likelihood of it in comparison to other potential metaphysical realities.
that's a huge theory with a lot to be debated, which part of it is it you want to debate?
Maybe this can be re-done with Ehyeh's main account, with this one deleted, because all that is necessary is a copy/paste of arguments.
thank you for the advice, have it shall be then. I would really like to debate your simulated universe theory, please. Lets see the sophist magic.
You can believe what you want, first learn the difference between 'have' and 'of' before lecturing me, ty.
You wouldn't of even posted that argument if my account wasn't banned. You would of just kept your kritik story going.
Whiteflame gave me a choice of keeping this one or the other one. I decided to keep this one, im not really sure why. Simply a gut feeling i suppose.
Novice, you are asking for a war.
I would have kept this account, because your record had much more potential with it. Perhaps ban your own one?
please see below my typo, I'll correct it in Round 2
" prefer you to become a transwoman then demand"
major error, I meant 'than' not 'then'.
K means attacking assumptions in the resolution/title.
Non-issue in what sense? I argue that both are challenging cisgender norms but the the transgender movement challenges it by conforming to it inversely while genderqueers completely defy the roles genuinely.
A Transman mimics male characteristics to play a man's role, similar with Transwomen and the woman's role.
What a stupid debate lol
I accept if you will accept me, they/them is a non-issue, what you mean by K in this case tho
Correct in a way, the Nazi's foremost enemy would be social democrats on balance but of course this could be argued to be socialists/communists, anarchists, humanitarians, lgbtq and their rights advocates disabled and their rights advocates, jews and their rights advocates.
The ideology clash is the key in this debate. It is a shame you were blocked or I may have successfully snared you but the voters could see that either way.
I have a different perspective on which of them is the problem but sure.
I agree here - the 72 gender they/them movement seriously convolutes the far more serious issue of transgender right - it undermines and makes a joke of some serious mental phenomenons.
So by your definition of enemy or rival movement, the NAZIs were not an enemy or rival movement of the Jews since they only genocided them and did not in fact , "render the original/other movement severely juxtaposed, hypocritical and/or critically implausible to uphold what it's actively pushing for "
You are unblocked, you can now accept the debate. Ensure you understand what you have agreed to in the description.
I am not able to accept this debate.
I assume it is not kritik to argue that global trans intolerance, fear, suicide, violence, incarceration, capitol punishment, prostitution, etc. are more fundamental "enemies" of trans folks then privileged Karens crying about pronouns.
Well, to do the debates I actually have to be at my computer, since it is significantly harder to write debate responses on mobile.
I am almost never on my computer and, when I am, I have client work, so having more than 1 or 2 debates right now takes up too much free time that I have lol.
Oromagi and I are still debating election irregularities in the 2020 election and I just started this new one.
If we wait a couple weeks then I can debate you on something! But as of right now I just don't have the time for 3 debates.
No, I am not an arrogant fool. I can lose this, I want the drop to be recoverable by beating the similar rating that beat me (or the rating to be so high the loss is lesser)
My rating is too low to accept the debate. If you lower the rating if no one accept it after tomorrow ill give it a shot.
I tweaked the term to be position/movement
It is the other movement that's the threat to the other, you have it backwards. They are reinforcing patriarchy and gender norms backwards.
To explain more would spoil my Round 1.
Try and strawman.
By the way I am with the they/them movement.
I would probably agree they/them type "gender expressions" are actually quite hard to defend and harm the trans mtf and ftm movement. Although you may struggle yourself if they take an ID perspective, which means even if they're opposites it shouldn't matter. Unless you argue an ID view of gender is nonsense? I wont take the debate, i already have a similar one going, and i get the sense you may end up being easy to strawman in this debate simply through your wording in the title, and id rather not strawman to win debates. Especially on a side i dont agree with.
Okay... There is not a limit to the debates you can do at once and if there was, it wouldn't be 1.
Though, tbh, I think this is an open and shir case for CON. But I won't explain why because that would be debate manipulation, and I also want to see RM's prowess defending a difficult position.
You JUST missed me!!
I am currently about to embark on a debate on whether Joe Biden probably has dementia.
Interesting debate here, however, I suspect the instigator will be unable to defend such a proposition, especially given the weak framework, and the burdens involved. Even considering the debaters and/or potential contenders involved, the particulars of the outcomes I theorize are not flattering.
Fancy a high rated debate clash?
Care to take a dabble?