Instigator / Pro
Decisively_Conservatist's avatar
0
Decisively_Conservatist
1500
rating
9
debates
38.89%
won
Topic
#4047

All trans people are dillusional

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06
Tags
People
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Intelligence_06's avatar
2
Intelligence_06
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Description

As trans people, I define those who have undergone or want to undergo a "gender transition surgery", use or want to use hormones to alter their physical appearance to resemble more a person of the opposite sex and people who "feel" as a person of the opposite gender.

Round 1
Decisively_Conservatist's avatar
Decisively_Conservatist
Pro
#1
I. SYLLOGISMS

Let's start with some syllogisms, shall we?

A1: All men are of the nature to have a specific set of reproductive organs, to produce semen and share gender specific genes.
A2: All women are of the nature to have a different set of reproductve organs to men, to produce ova and share gender specific genes.
B3: Therefore, men can't possess female reproductive organs, aren't of the nature to produce ova and can't share gender speficic genes with women. Therefore men are not women and vice versa.

C1: Gender Transition Surgeries can only alter the entry and exit points of the reproductive system (namely turn pennis into vagina and vice versa).
C2: G.T.S. do not alter the inner reproductive organs and genome of a man and a woman and they can't enable one to produce gametes opposite of those which their birth gender can. 
D3: Therefore, G.T.S. can't change one from man to woman and vice versa.

E1: Surgeries and hormones can't actually change one's gender (from previous syllogism)
E2: "Trans" people undergo (or want to undergo) these surgeries and use (or want to use) hormones and they "feel" as a person of the opposite sex. 
F3: "Trans" people can't actually change their gender.

G1: "Trans" people can't actually change their gender. (from previous syllogism)
G2: "Trans" people believe they already have or can alter their gender (or at least want to do something impossible).
H3: "Trans" people believe a lie.

I1: "Trans" people actually believe a lie. (from previous syllogism)
I2: People who believe in a lie are disillusioned.
J3: "Trans" people are disillusioned.

I have won right here, but I will proceed.

II. Advance rebuttals.

A) "Why do you care, since everyone can believe whatever they want, even in a lie? After all, we have freedom of thought."

First of all, I do agree that everyone has the freedom to think and believe in whatever they want, even in a lie.

HOWEVER: One's freedom ends when another one's starts. So, I cannot accept propaganda and mind washing against our society and children. So long as "trans" people (or even normal people for that matter) do NOT try to ACTIVELY persuade other people to believe in a lie and do not ACTIVELY publicate their feelings about people who do not take them seriously (as every normal person should do) and/or make fun of them (which isn't as good because it can cause bias and prejudice against these people)  then I have no problem against "trans" people.

When a propaganda of lies becomes the norm, it is inevitable and ethical to take it down and unethical to support it. 

B) "But, not ALL women can produce ova and not ALL men can produce semen!"

So what? It doesn't change the point that ALL women, even those incapable of producing gamete, are OF THE NATURE to do it. For those who have an inability, it is unnatural, since it is caused by either an illness, a genetic anomaly or another kind of health problem. Of course, this is also true about men. 

This argument, were it valid, would demand a new definition of the word woman and man to include people who cannot produce gametes. However, the argument is invalid and there is no need to redefine the word.

For example, were an alien to come and visit Earth, he would see humans with 1,2,3,4,5 heads and 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 hands (I'm talking of course for people with genetic anomalies as, again, it isn't natural). It would be a category mistake to define humans as beings with "any number of heads and any number of hands" and it would be also wrong to categorise them as beings with "1,2,3,4,5 heads and 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 hands". What would be correct for  the alien to do, would be to categorise humans as being with "1 head and 2 hands" but also note that there are some kinds of genetic anomalies or health issue(s) IRREGULARLY altering that number. 


Awaiting your response...





Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
Con
#2
1. Definitions

As trans people, I define those who have undergone or want to undergo a "gender transition surgery", use or want to use hormones to alter their physical appearance to resemble more a person of the opposite sex and people who "feel" as a person of the opposite gender.
This statement did not define anything due to a flaw in the sentence structure. The part after "I define" is all entirely a subject and there is no object present afterwards or before it, perceivably, meaning that the definition is not directed to correspond to any phrase, regardless if Pro is trans or not.

This term is not meaningfully circulated as a term in English, so if we are really nitpicking, the topic prompt cannot ever be true as it attempts to access ideas and cases without truth values, because such ideas do not exist. This term is also concerningly absent from the rest of Pro R1.

I define those who have undergone or want to undergo a "gender transition surgery", use or want to use hormones to alter their physical appearance to resemble more a person of the opposite sex and people who "feel" as a person of the opposite gender, as trans people.
This will be my definition that will be provisionally used here. The wording is strikingly similar to Pro's failed attempt at defining something, so I am going to assume Pro agrees with it, unless Pro brings up valid criticism.

2. Properties of transgenderism & Hi-Tech

Pro did not state the stage of society to be considered in his frame of definition. In fact, transgenderism has existed since the BCE periods and we have no reason to believe they will just disappear in the future, where technology boosts upward. We have no reason to believe that transgenderism will die out when the technique of replacing the entirety of male sex organs with female sex organs with reasonable placement, or vice versa, gets developed by a scientific research team, and we have no reason to believe that transgenders will disappear when we finally grasp the idea of consciousness transferring, transferring a girl's mind to a man's, etc.

If such technologies are possible, which they theoretically are(I mean, they are just a collection of movement of molecules from one place to another, how hard can they be), that would mean a biological male can become a person that is biologically female, vice versa, or even mutate one's body so it contains both or neither as wish, regardless of ethical viability. In that case, biological transgenderism would be no delusion.

Pro's debate setup, as an instigator, included nothing other than almost a definition in both descriptions, putting no limitations on what cases must not be considered, therefore, as we consider all that is theoretically possible and viable, there ought to be cases of biological transgenderism that is no delusion. The topic is proven false as "all" is present and the topic is written in simple tense, instead of "All trans people were delusional".

C1: Gender Transition Surgeries can only alter the entry and exit points of the reproductive system (namely turn pennis into vagina and vice versa).
C2: G.T.S. do not alter the inner reproductive organs and genome of a man and a woman and they can't enable one to produce gametes opposite of those which their birth gender can. 
D3: Therefore, G.T.S. can't change one from man to woman and vice versa.
These sets of claim, a part of a linear R1 argument setup which Pro used that could be cut off at any point unless any reinforcements adds at a later time, are thus unproven.

3. Groups & Exceptions

and people who "feel" as a person of the opposite gender.
This group is a part of definition that qualify as "trans people". That means, as long as I "want" to be another gender and I really do want it, I am trans, according to this definition here. "I want to be female" is different from "I am female". If you are really biologically male, then "I want to be female" itself acknowledges that you could be non-female, which is not delusional.

I define those who have undergone or want to undergo a "gender transition surgery",
Although unrecommended, doing these surgeries for fun technically counts you as "trans", without the part that sparks any concern about delusions,

I rest my case.

Conclusions
  • As biological transgenderism is theoretically possible, Pro cannot speak for the future that it is impossible.
  • Several groups within Pro's definitional frame do not necessarily involve any delusions at all.
  • The topic is not as of yet proven.



Round 2
Decisively_Conservatist's avatar
Decisively_Conservatist
Pro
#3
Ι. CORRECTIONS.

-English isn't my mother language so, the weirdly worded definition is a mistake in my part and I accept yours.
-As delusional, I meant "illusional" or "disillusioned" any of the 2 terms fit, another linguistic mistake of my being non-native.

II. REBUTTALS:

Opponent claimed that the "all" part of my definition is invalid because of something that COULD or COULD NOT happen in the future (advancement of gender transition surgeries). 

However, my opponent is not a clairvoyant. The debate is happening in the present and thus, any definition I have provided is valid on present BIOLOGY and not on future technology. Common scientific facts and common sense won't change anytime, even if technology enables humans to do more and more things with their bodies.

III. SOURCE REBUTTALS.

So, you quoted a source about the history of transgenderism. Besides the fact that it isn't a primary source, there are several problems with it.

                        "Transgenderism and gender non-conformity has, throughout time, taken on many different guises and forms. Examples of this include androgynous Ancient Egyptian gods, male Japanese actors during the Edo period playing female characters or Native American tribes having ‘third-gender’ roles, most notably Navajo nádleehi or Zuni lhamana. Transgenderism alongside other forms of gender non-conformity has a long past and can be found not only dotted through time but dotted across the globe."

Answer: The Navajo nadleehi and the Zuni Ilhamana describe quote "effeminate men and masculine women", according to your source.
Well, effeminate man doesn't constitute a trans man/woman or someone that has or can change their gender. For instance, let's say I have no facial hair (i.e. mustache), long blonde hair, gynecomastia, high levels of estrogen and other characteristics that put me in the position of an effeminate man. Does that mean I am or could become a woman? NO. Or that I feel trans? Not necessarily. It just means that I could likely be a homosexual person or, simply, a heterosexual male looking like a woman. In no way this means that I could become or already am a member of the opposite gender. The same is true for masculine women. 

"or Native American tribes having ‘third-gender’ roles"

This means that there is a third gender ROLE, not a third gender. Additionally, for members of the two original genders, the fact still remains that men can't become women and women can't become men. However, men can possess the third gender ROLE and potentially women could possess this third gender ROLE as well. None of the two can become their opposite, even according to native Americans.

                  "Across Europe there are examples of transgenderism to be found, starting at the Vikings, passing through early modern Europe before continuing to the present day. Norse mythology, similar to that of Ancient Egypt, saw Loki and Odin have distinctly genderfluid roles; Odin was proficient in the apparently effeminate seiðr magic, and different stories portray both Loki and Odin as women. Dramatisations of Viking life on TV and film presents distinct gender norms, with men being muscular and full of bravado, but real Viking conceptions of gender was not as set in stone as this would suggest."

A) Odin and Loki were considered to be gods, and therefore as GODS, were able to do things and take forms unimaginable for humans (vikings). So, the fact that Odin and Loki were portrayed as women in some FAIRYTALES, doesn't mean that there was or is anything to suggest that the same could be done for HUMANS. 

B) Leave folklore alone and use real world examples. I could say that the minotaur was two species, human and bull, but there is one major problem; The MINOTAUR did NOT exist. Thus, Odin and Loki are out of the picture.

C) There is a fallacy within the source. You quoted the source, so you are either not thinking logically, endorsing the fallacy or you didn't notice it. I don't know which is worse.

The fallacy is that the source claims Odin to be gender fluid because he was profficient in a form of magic considered to be manly practised by women. First of all, with Odin being the all-father and all, he was capable in every form of magic. It makes sense to me. Secondly and most importantly, being involved and practising something feminine doesn't equal in my being ;
A) "Trans"
B) Able to change my gender
C) Willing to change my gender.

For example, were I to love pink, it would make me neither trans, nor able, nor willing to change my gender. 

This same fallacy is prevalent thoughout this source, so I won't individually rebut every instance mentioned by it. Consider this a holistic rebuttal of your source.

Finally, we have this piece: 
"Early modern Western Europe, including but not exclusive to France and Spain, saw people write about overtly gender non-conforming themes. A 1322 French poem by Kalonymus ben Kalonymus contained evidently gender dysphoric feelings; he laments at being created a man and wishes to be female. There are several examples of 16th Century Spanish girls growing up and taking on male identities, for example Antonio de Erauso née Catalina, who went on to fight a a mercenary in the Arauco War (1536-1810) in modern day Chile. Gender non-conformity was therefore prevalent in Europe, but this is not to say that it was not also ubiquitous in other parts of the world."

A) Gender dysphoria is a mental illness, so it makes sense that SOME deranged people woud have felt it during the Middle Ages. These people, noy having access to medical aid and/or psychiatrists, they went on to embrace their illusion. Nowadays, even with medical aid being AVAILABLE, most trans people still prefer to do permanent damage to their bodies instead of treating their medical illness.

B) Even IF I dress up as a woman, seriously thinking i AM a woman, doesn't make me one. 


To sum up;  Your source is totally obsolete, as transgenderism, as defined by the both of us, is mainly a RECENT invention, mainly after the 1930s. There are only the two known outliers of the Middle Ages your source referenced. 
Contrary to this, homosexuality has been around for as long as humanity has been around. At least some Ancient Greeks were homosexual or practiced homosexuality with no consequences. In Ancient Egypt, the pharaos used to make out with MALE CHILDREN in front of everyone in the palace, etc. 

Goes to say that transgenderism is invalid AND unnatural, while homosexuality is ONLY unnatural (although acceptable).









Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
Con
#4
1. Further on Definitions

-English isn't my mother language so, the weirdly worded definition is a mistake in my part and I accept yours.
I apologize, although not being entirely clear, the attempt on defining "trans" by the effort of Pro in the description section actually can be seen as a successful one, as the object is being placed before the other parts of the sentence. One example for so is: To the east we shall sail towards.

I define those who have undergone or want to undergo a "gender transition surgery", use or want to use hormones to alter their physical appearance to resemble more a person of the opposite sex and people who "feel" as a person of the opposite gender, as trans people.
Since all the change I have made at the first round argument is just moving the "as trans people" to the back of the sentence, the content and meaning of "trans" remains stationary. This should be of an agreement made by both parties, as obviously seen.

Restate: These three groups, if we look at it as 3, are trans.
    • those who have undergone or want to undergo a "gender transition surgery"
    • (those who) use or want to use hormones to alter their physical appearance to resemble more a person of the opposite sex
    • people who "feel" as a person of the opposite gender
    These are directly copy-pasted from the definitional framework agreed upon by both. Any individual that do satisfy either of the three criteria is considered "trans" here due to how it is defined, and as long as one instance is not delusional or disillusioned, the topic is false.

    2. Rebuttals1

    Opponent claimed that the "all" part of my definition is invalid because of something that COULD or COULD NOT happen in the future (advancement of gender transition surgeries). 
    Nothing in the description nor the title implies that it is the present state of human society we are talking about. Without restrictions, it could only be interpreted that there is none, and any theoretical society that can have "trans" individuals would therefore apply. At least, they should, well.

    We know what biology is. We know that both male and female anatomical systems are composed of cells, composed of organic molecules, and if we modify them, move them around, what was once a man can be morphed into a biological woman. That is theoretically possible, and only limited due to the lack of adequate moral sphere or ample technology within the modern society on Earth. What I asked for is likely to be possible, and IS theoretically possible. A biological man can become a biological woman by just moving around and modifying cells.

    Common scientific facts and common sense won't change anytime, even if technology enables humans to do more and more things with their bodies.
    If biology progresses to the point where cell transplanting technology is to the point a biological male can be transformed into a biological female, then said "trans" individual achieves what they longed for, meaning they are not disillusioned. Just because scientific fact and common sense stay constant, does not prove anything at all. While a biological man is not a biological woman, a biological man does not keep being a biological man if a transformation to a biological woman is successful, which enables said trans individual to be not disillusioned.

    The debate is happening in the present and thus, any definition I have provided is valid on present BIOLOGY and not on future technology.
    This is the addition of conditions that were hidden before the debate was accepted. In fact, since Russell can't disprove there is a teapot in the sky, we cannot prove that there is not a society of people, out there somewhere, perhaps in the stars, that has grasped such technology. The inability to disprove such societies automatically guarantees a no-success for such an absolute of a topic for Pro.

    3. Rebuttal2

    III. SOURCE REBUTTALS.
    Reminder that this long section is solely dedicated to 1 source which pointed out that trans people did exist.

    he laments at being created a man and wishes to be female. There are several examples of 16th Century Spanish girls growing up and taking on male identities, for example Antonio de Erauso née Catalina, who went on to fight a a mercenary in the Arauco War (1536-1810) in modern day Chile. Gender non-conformity was therefore prevalent in Europe, but this is not to say that it was not also ubiquitous in other parts of the world."
    This constitutes all that is needed for an instance to be trans according to the definition we agreed upon.
      • people who "feel" as a person of the opposite gender
      Yes, a part of that very definition. Wanting to be like the opposite gender is enough to be "trans" here.

      I drop the others presented on that source, I didn't sift it quite as well as I should have, oh well.

      4. Extendation

      • Just because you want to feel like an individual of the opposite gender, does not constitute the manfestation of any necessary delusion.
        • According to the definition, wanting to be like the other gender/sex is enough to make you trans. Regular desire constitutes no necessary delusion.
      • Doing a surgical transformation purely for fun, although unrecommended morally, does not constitute any delusion.
      • Doing a surgical transformation advanced enough that it really turns you biologically into the other sex does not constitute any delusion.
      • Wanting to do a surgical transformation of any complexity level for any reason would make you trans. This makes no necessary delusion.
      B) Even IF I dress up as a woman, seriously thinking i AM a woman, doesn't make me one. 
      This violates the definition written by and agreed upon by Pro.

      • All these points above are being dropped by Pro, I extend them. Vote CON.

      Round 3
      Decisively_Conservatist's avatar
      Decisively_Conservatist
      Pro
      #5
      I. REBUTTALS

      "Yes, a part of that very definition. Wanting to be like the opposite gender is enough to be "trans" here."

      I never said that these weren't trans. I just said that trans people  are disillusioned. Case closed.

      "B) Even IF I dress up as a woman, seriously thinking i AM a woman, doesn't make me one. 
      This violates the definition written by and agreed upon by Pro."


      How? I never claimed this person wasn't trans, I just claimed he WAS trans but not actually a woman, as I point out. They are just being disillusioned.


      "As trans people, I define those who have undergone or want to undergo a "gender transition surgery", use or want to use hormones to alter their physical appearance to resemble more a person of the opposite sex and people who "feel" as a person of the opposite gender."

      That was my definition. 

      "These are directly copy-pasted from the definitional framework agreed upon by both. Any individual that do satisfy either of the three criteria is considered "trans" here due to how it is defined, and as long as one instance is not delusional or disillusioned, the topic is false."

      This is what you wrote.

      Notice that in my definition there is no OR/EITHER or any other word that implies that just ONE of the criteria mentioned have to be true in order for someone to be considered trans. I, instead, used the word "AND" somewhere in there to imply that the last criterion should be ALSO at play as the previous ones.


      So, immediately, we can see that the following points you made are wrong;

      "According to the definition, wanting to be like the other gender/sex is enough to make you trans. Regular desire constitutes no necessary delusion.
      • Doing a surgical transformation purely for fun, although unrecommended morally, does not constitute any delusion.
      • ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      • Wanting to do a surgical transformation of any complexity level for any reason would make you trans. This makes no necessary delusion."
      A) If you do a surgical transformation purely for fun, you are not TRANS and therefore can not be considered disillusioned on the grounds of being one.
      B) Same as A.


      "Reminder that this long section is solely dedicated to 1 source which pointed out that trans people did exist."
      So?


      "he laments at being created a man and wishes to be female. There are several examples of 16th Century Spanish girls growing up and taking on male identities, for example Antonio de Erauso née Catalina, who went on to fight a a mercenary in the Arauco War (1536-1810) in modern day Chile. Gender non-conformity was therefore prevalent in Europe, but this is not to say that it was not also ubiquitous in other parts of the world."
      This constitutes all that is needed for an instance to be trans according to the definition we agreed upon.

      • people who "feel" as a person of the opposite gender
      Yes, a part of that very definition. Wanting to be like the opposite gender is enough to be "trans" here.

      I drop the others presented on that source, I didn't sift it quite as well as I should have, oh well."


      Notice that opponent never tries to object to the notion of disillusionality (? is there even this word) but instead focuses on the term trans.
      Yet again, though, "Wanting to be like the opposite gender is enough to be "trans" here." No, it is not enough. And, even if it were enough, opponent still doesn't describe why this person is not being disillusioned.




      Finally, I will address the whole rest of your answer as a collective.


      First of all, I admit that my definition and whole discussion never specified the timeline of when we are talking about. In this case, I have to rest my case as defeated.

      NONETHELESS THOUGH, if we are not nitpicking here, it is OBVIOUS that this discussion is happening in the present and refers TO it. 

      I mean, is there anything in my syllogisms or other arguments that refers to the past or future as a central part of our discussion? No, only the PRESENT.

      Actually, in my syllogisms, I have only used PRESENT tenses.

      Therefore, I say that case is not "closed" yet and opp has a really hard job of defeating me.

      That's why they put their hopes to nit-picking and a "legal hole" (a little window to escape getting convicted or, in this case, defeated) to appear superior.

      Ultimately though, unless you want to continue the discussion refering to the present (as it is logical), I am forced to surrender.


      Intelligence_06's avatar
      Intelligence_06
      Con
      #6
      "disillusioned"

      -As delusional, I meant "illusional" or "disillusioned" any of the 2 terms fit, another linguistic mistake of my being non-native.
      Actually, in this context, made in Pro R2, Pro equated "disillusioned" with "delusional", but not "dillusional", therefore the equivalence technically worths nothing. I just typed "delusional" because it sounded more like a word, because "dillusional" is not one. Nothing indicates that the topic holds any practical meaning when there is a non-word without an actual tangible definition linked directly to it. And no, Pro did not say that "dillusional" and "delusional" are the same, and have clearly reasoned that in R2 and R3, "dillusional" means "disillusioned" instead of "delusional". Since Pro made no equivalence that "disillusioned" = "dillusional", the argument therefore argues not for the topic but for something else.

      REBUTTALS
      "Yes, a part of that very definition. Wanting to be like the opposite gender is enough to be "trans" here."

      I never said that these weren't trans. I just said that trans people  are disillusioned. Case closed.
      Correct. If there is any trans individual that is not disillusioned, the topic is proven wrong.

      I don't know if this is too late, but Pro has never brought the definition up.
      In this case, I maintain that:
      • Those who undergo reassignment surgery solely for fun got what they thought they wanted, therefore they are trans without disillusioned.
      • Desire and disillusion are different. Wanting to be a woman is enough to be trans, as accepted by the opponent, and no lost of faith in anything was being pointed out. If I want a cake, am I being disillusioned in respect to anything? Possibly not. Same with wanting to be a girl.
        • Contrary to what "the masses" may probably think, according to the definition, again I say, that is really enough.
      How? I never claimed this person wasn't trans, I just claimed he WAS trans but not actually a woman, as I point out. They are just being disillusioned.
      In order for some to be trans, they do not need to believe they are a gender not corresponding to their physical and biological sex and be convinced that it is wrong. Merely any recognizable and discernable desire of so is enough according to the definition. No disillusion required, again.

      In fact, if a trans person believes that they are the other gender without a successful physical transformation, with the belief held so rigidly that no one can convince they are wrong, then they are not disillusioned, as the definition of disillusioned, not delusional, not dillusional, is:
      having lost faith or trust in something formerly regarded as good or valuable
      None of that is required.



      Notice that in my definition there is no OR/EITHER or any other word that implies that just ONE of the criteria mentioned have to be true in order for someone to be considered trans. I, instead, used the word "AND" somewhere in there to imply that the last criterion should be ALSO at play as the previous ones.[PRO R3]
      Let me give an example.
      "BUS PRIORITY SEAT: Reserved for: The disabled, the elderly, the pregnant, and the injured."
      Suppose you are an old man, and you wanna sit, and then someone stops you because you are not "disabled, elderly, pregnant and injured", what would you think? These seats are reserved for any of those: either disabled, old, pregnant, or the injured. One is needed to satisfy the criteria, and you don't have to satisfy all of them.

      Now let's review the definition entry for "trans" in which the frame has been agreed upon since R1.
      "As trans people, I define those who have undergone or want to undergo a "gender transition surgery", use or want to use hormones to alter their physical appearance to resemble more a person of the opposite sex and people who "feel" as a person of the opposite gender."
      Structurally, this is equivalent to "I define "X people" as anyone within individual class A, anyone within individual class B, and anyone within individual class C". For example, "I define Nordic people as anyone in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland". No one has to be simultaneously a holder of 4 passports in order to be considered "Nordic" even if the supposition is true above. One Swede and one Norwegian, and that is two Nordic people, obviously.

      The point is, yes, because you define "X people" as those within the three groups, you are looking for the union, not the intersection. Anyone who satisfy one criteria is enough to be trans. Especially, since Pro openly accepted that those solely with the desire to become the opposite gender is qualified to be considered trans.

      So, immediately, we can see that the following points you made are wrong;
      So, immediately, we can see that the following points you made are wrong.




      Notice that opponent never tries to object to the notion of disillusionality (? is there even this word) but instead focuses on the term trans.
      Yet again, though, "Wanting to be like the opposite gender is enough to be "trans" here." No, it is not enough. And, even if it were enough, opponent still doesn't describe why this person is not being disillusioned.
      Firstly, this is directly at war with what Pro made at the start of the round.
      "Yes, a part of that very definition. Wanting to be like the opposite gender is enough to be "trans" here."
      I never said that these weren't trans. I just said that trans people  are disillusioned. Case closed.
      Secondly, it is not my requirement to prove why they "aren't disillusioned", I just need to prove that not all are disillusioned given the "all" in the topic. On the contrary, it is upon Pro's burden to prove that all of them are disillusioned, due to how the topic is phrased.

      NONETHELESS THOUGH, if we are not nitpicking here, it is OBVIOUS that this discussion is happening in the present and refers TO it. 
      Obvious? If it is obvious, then my opponent would definitely be able to bring loads of evidence of why it is so, instead of plainly saying it is "obvious". Given the lack of specification in the description on anything other than what is "trans", no it is not.

      Also, since the lack of "on balance" which enables the burden of proof shared somewhat, Pro would need in this topic to debunk all possibilities of possible cases even in the present. If Russell can't prove a flying teapot, then Pro cannot disprove that somewhere in the multiverse, technology turning a man into an actual woman exists, constituting no disillusions for them. Pro cannot debunk that.

      Actually, in my syllogisms, I have only used PRESENT tenses.
      And in mine, I did not. The purpose of this debate, or any, is to argue centred around the topic, not Pro's arguments that could change over time.

      That's why they put their hopes to nit-picking and a "legal hole" (a little window to escape getting convicted or, in this case, defeated) to appear superior.
      Still better than having your arguments based on partly vagueness. Unlike some, which may or may not include Pro, I argue what the topic is and I always argue what the topic exactly is.

      Ultimately though, unless you want to continue the discussion refering to the present (as it is logical), I am forced to surrender.
      Having it strictly in present tense does not help Pro to any significant amount.

      Conclusions
      • Pro actually still has yet to clarify what "dillusional" means, and in the absence of so, the debate topic can be looked as something impossible to prove.
      • The structure of definitions includes the union of the groups mentioned, not just the intersectional domain.
        • Based on this, it does enable certain subgroups of trans people that are reasonably not disillusioned.
          • Which is entirely enough to disprove Pro and prove Con.
      • Pro cannot disprove groups that possess sufficient technology now yet Pro holds the BoP, therefore Pro failed to uphold it.
        • Limiting the context to this moment amounts to nothing.
      • Pro contradicted himself on a crucial matter, on whether or not if an individual counts as trans. We ought to disregard the interpretation derived from incorrect reasoning(as the definition is inclusive to the union), therefore the groups mentioned that are reasonably not disillusioned, satisfying something as stated in the earlier rounds that is enough, not disproving CON.
      • Overall vote CON!
      I rest my case. Hope you guys have a beating reading this.