Instigator / Pro
22
1482
rating
24
debates
41.67%
won
Topic
#4505
There are only 2 genders
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
12
Better sources
10
10
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
4
2
After 5 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
Bella3sp
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
29
1524
rating
54
debates
74.07%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
My argument will be short and sweet for round 1. Simply there are only two genders: male and female. Gender and sex are the same thing. Gender is not a "social construct" that makes no sense and that's not how it works. You can't identify as something you are not. If you were born male you cannot say you are a female, you were not born with a uterus and you are unable to give birth.
My arguments will extend next round after Con states their argument.
Con
#2
Thanks Devon,
Point:
Case
My case is straight forward, I am going to prove that there are more than two genders. However, I will prove doing so by proving that male and female by themselves are not a gender and other underlying genders. To identify these genders, I will establish the idea of social construct.
Burden:
This is shared between both users.
Pro must uphold that first off, there are two gender and defend there is not more than those genders.
Con must uphold that there are more or less than two genders.
Defintions:
I ask if any definitions are to be contested, contest them in the second round. However, remember that all these sources are from sources such as "org, verywell, and ca" therefore I doubt anything could contest them to their abilities.
What is gender?
Gender is often defined as a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that varies between societies and over time. Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary. Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both.
What is gender?
Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
What is a social construct?
A social construct is a concept that exists not in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction.
I. Gender is a social construct.
I have already stated the defintion of a social construct above.
Gender is not based on objective reality but rather something of human interaction. Gender is something you choose to identify as. Such as identifying as someone who is transgender however, be assigned as (sex) male at birth.
In other words, gender is a is an identity, aka your own perception of who you are.
II. Sex is not related to all genders.
Sex versus Gender
Sex and gender are not the same. This is going to be an uphill battle of, is sex gender.
"Gender is an identity — your personal sense of who you are. The term can also refer to socially constructed categories that relate to what it means to be a man or a woman.
Sex refers to biological and physiological characteristics. Your genitals, hormones, and chromosomes all relate to your sex."
In other words, as I mention social construct above, sex is based on objective reality. Gender is not.
Which shows the difference between the two.
Basically: one exists through biological matters which another you express who you think and feel you are.
Cisgender = He/Him or She/Her
"Female and Male", that is common for some people to suggest as a gender is different.
The word for this is Cisgender. Cisgender is coresponding with your sex related to by birth however, that doesn't show that all other genders have to. That is where I hold my objection. Other genders such as Non-Binary don't corospond with their biological sex. And that's fine. It's still a gender even if you do not agree with how the gender is defined as.
III. Genders are diverse.
There are multiple genders.
- Cisgender
- Transgender
- Gender neutral
- Non-binary
- Agender
- Genderqueer
These ones are simply off the top of my head.
However for more genders refer to this link:
Remember that all genders change from places to places, and there are multiple diverse genders such as races.
Rebuttals:
Simply there are only two genders: male and female. Gender and sex are the same thing. Gender is not a "social construct" that makes no sense and that's not how it works. You can't identify as something you are not. If you were born male you cannot say you are a female, you were not born with a uterus and you are unable to give birth.
I would have liked for Pro to state, what is a gender and define social construct. Simply saying "it makes no sense and that's not how it works" is not an argument. That is more so an opinion rather than a supported argument. I can sit here and say "There is more than two genders because it makes sense and that's how it works" but that's not much of a supported argument.
Gender and sex are not the same thing; gender is a social construct where as sex is not. My contentions already respond to this. However, I will say that Cisgender relates to identifying of your biological self. But I already stated, that doesn't mean other genders have too as well.
That said, as a gender is a social construct and if I wanted to identify as non-binary, can.
Now let me dig deeper into the following: "you were born with a uterus and you are unable to give birth".
I think this is false. Why? Because some "females" were not born with a uterus and infertile. Some were actually born with both parts. This term is mentioned as "Intersex". So, I ask you, if you think gender relates to sex (even though it doesn't) is it possible that Intersex could be considered as another gender?
Sources:
I look forward to your next response.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Breaking down the definition of gender
Gender is often defined as a social construct of norms. Social construct as Con defined: Is a concept that exists NOT in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction.
Key words: Not in objective reality, meaning it's not real. Objective refers to the truth and factual data that is not influenced by personal beliefs or biases. Con states gender is something you choose to identify as. False. You cannot be born one way then decide you want to identify as something different. I ask that Con explain how human interactions equate to someone claiming to be a gender that they were not born as?
Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both.
Let's pay attention to the word both. Per the definition this asserts that some humans possibly have sex organs of both male and female, meaning they can both impregnate a woman and become impregnated by another man and give birth, which in turn means it's assumed that some humans are hermaphrodites. Some animals are hermaphrodites with the exception of birds and mammals (humans are mammals). There have been no cases of a human producing both male and female gametes, in other words able to give birth while at the same time impregnate another human. Hermaphroditism does not occur in humans. Proof that this gender definition defies logic as there is only male and female.
Let's pay attention to the word neither. This asserts gender-neutral within humans meaning they don't have neither sex organs: Gender-neutral as Con stated in the list under Genders are diverse.
Definition 1: Gender-neutral: The term ‘gender-neutral’ means that something is not associated with either women or men. It may refer to various aspects such as concepts or style of language.
Definition 2: Gender neutrality, also known as gender-neutralism or the gender neutrality movement, is the idea that policies, language, and other social institutions should avoid distinguishing roles according to people's sex or gender.
Let's pay attention to "language", "movement", "should avoid distinguishing roles" those aforementioned words aren't facts that prove gender neutrality being real. It suggests a "movement" was started and people want to avoid labeling what they were born as. This appeals to people's feelings and aren't factual, therefore gender-neutral is not real and it is impossible to be gender-neutral. Again, you are either born male or female.
Proof that gender and sex are the same
Sex is categorized as female or maleGender is categorized as male or female
Within Con's definition as stated, both definitions involve male and female as I took a short portion of both and presented it, which is important. Con states that the difference between the two is that gender is a social construct in which I debunked above when I broke down the definition of gender. As you can see, both gender and sex definitions coincide.
Sex: The male, female, or sometimes intersex division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions or physical characteristics such as genitals, XX and XY chromosomes, etc.
Transgenderism
Con states: Such as identifying as someone who is transgender however, be assigned as (sex) male at birth.
No matter what, a male who was born a male will always be a male. They have XY chromosomes, it's in their DNA even if they transition to a "female". Transgenderism is a mental illness. An individual is identifying as something they are factually not. This ties in with what I said prior at the beginning referring to "Not objective reality" and also as you stated "Gender is something you choose to identify as"
Transgender: An umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.
Answers to your questions about transgender people, gender identity, and gender expression (apa.org)
Con states: In other words, gender is a is an identity, aka your own perception of who you are.
Just because they perceive themselves that way doesn't make it reality. There are a such thing as false perceptions.
Illusion: something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.
Illusion, hallucination or delusion refer to false perceptions or ideas. An illusion is a false mental image produced by misinterpretation of things that actually exist: A mirage is an illusion produced by reflection of light against the sky.
Illusion Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com (Scroll until you see SYNONYM STUDY FOR ILLUSION)
Argument
If you were born a man, you cannot identify as a woman since you were born male with XY chromosomes, same case with a female who was born as female cannot identify as a man as this defies science and human nature. That's not how it works. There are only two genders, not more or less than. I already showcased how gender and sex are the same thing per the definitions. How come on job applications and/or important paperwork "choose your gender" (not sex) M (male) or F (female) is listed? This also proves that gender and sex are the same. Yes at times there may be a third option "Rather not say" but majority of the time it's male or female. What about animals? There are male and female animals. That's how reproduction exists, same with humans. Are there transgender animals? Nonbinary animals? Gender fluid animals? No. In response to your point about intersex - I believe intersex can fit in both definitions of sex and gender as gender and sex are the same thing, but if I were to answer your question as far as you saying gender and sex are two different things, I would feel as if it aligns more with sex. I am a human. If I identify as a dog does that make me a dog? No. Same case applies for gender. What you were born as is what you were born. You cannot choose your gender since both gender and sex are the same.
Pronouns
A lot of these things people have made up over the years to the point where it's out of hand, even when it comes to the pronouns Ze/hir/hirs, ze/zir/zirs.
Con states: Cisgender is coresponding with your sex related to by birth however, that doesn't show that all other genders have to.
Can you provide a source for this? That's a loophole. Per the definition of cisgender, it's basically the same as the definition as sex. As a matter of fact the term cisgender shouldn't even exist at all as it's offensive to people who are actual biological females who were born as such and accept themselves for who they are. It's as if (some, not all) transgender women classify themselves as real women and they denounce biological women and they make a mockery of them. They will never experience childbirth or having periods every month etc, which is what real women go through. So to claim that they are real women and for them to diss biological women is a big slap in the face.
Cisgender: of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth
Cisgender Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster This is literally the same definition of sex and like I said gender and sex are the same. This term should be nonexistent.
That said, as a gender is a social construct and if I wanted to identify as non-binary, can.
Did you feel this way ever since you were born? Or are you saying you can never feel this way for a long time but if you want to up and change your mind and decide tomorrow that you want to identify as non-binary, you can do that? I agree with the former.
Now let me dig deeper into the following: "you were born with a uterus and you are unable to give birth".I think this is false. Why? Because some "females" were not born with a uterus and infertile. Some were actually born with both parts.
Let's be clear, I stated "you were not born with a uterus and you are unable to give birth." Con forgot to include the not. A simple misunderstanding. I wanted to clear that up to make sure Con's response to me was their legitimate response and not one based off of them thinking I said "you were born with a uterus" vs "you were not born with a uterus". I was saying a man is not born with a uterus and is unable to give birth which is a true statement. What you said was true too regarding women being infertile, as far as women being born without a uterus, it's a very rare case. About one in 5,000 but like I said there are only two genders. Con's response here does not disprove my argument.
Con
#4
Pro practically uses sex as their main argument. So, most will be a repeat of me saying, basically "gender and sex are not the same thing".
Breaking down the definition of genderGender is often defined as a social construct of norms. Social construct as Con defined: Is a concept that exists NOT in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction.Key words: Not in objective reality, meaning it's not real. Objective refers to the truth and factual data that is not influenced by personal beliefs or biases. Con states gender is something you choose to identify as. False. You cannot be born one way then decide you want to identify as something different. I ask that Con explain how human interactions equate to someone claiming to be a gender that they were not born as?
So, here's the problem.
Pro contridicts themselves and says in round one: "Gender is not a "social construct", is pro now agreeing?
How do you define real? I think your using it in the wrong context.
Yes, you choose to identify as a certain gender. Pro doesn't seem to understand the difference between sex and gender, which is mentioned later on.
Let's pay attention to the word both. Per the definition this asserts that some humans possibly have sex organs of both male and female, meaning they can both impregnate a woman and become impregnated by another man and give birth, which in turn means it's assumed that some humans are hermaphrodites. Some animals are hermaphrodites with the exception of birds and mammals (humans are mammals). There have been no cases of a human producing both male and female gametes, in other words able to give birth while at the same time impregnate another human. Hermaphroditism does not occur in humans. Proof that this gender definition defies logic as there is only male and female.
This is irrevlent. See how it says gender? Not sex?
Hermaphrodites = Sex NOT gender.
That is sex not gender. To confirm, I would like to mention that nowhere in your resolution does it say I cannot include animals. Therefore, this really isn't helping your case in the slightest. But I won't be talking about aniamls, as ill explain later on.
Proof that gender and sex are the sameSex is categorized as female or maleGender is categorized as male or femaleWithin Con's definition as stated, both definitions involve male and female as I took a short portion of both and presented it, which is important. Con states that the difference between the two is that gender is a social construct in which I debunked above when I broke down the definition of gender. As you can see, both gender and sex definitions coincide.
Hah! Pro COMPLETELY changed my entire definition. I ask that voters disregard these "short portions" and focus on the actual set definitions. Unless con contests these definitions, I ask that the definition is fully used.
That said, I hope you realize it said "Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary."
That's not even including all the genders nor is it saying it is used all the time. It's just stating what is often, reguarlly used.
Now, I want you to see the clear difference between the two definitions.
Let me restate sex:
"What is gender? (This is meant to say sex)
Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed."
Biological attributes versus a social construct. Get it?
Sex: The male, female, or sometimes intersex division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions or physical characteristics such as genitals, XX and XY chromosomes, etc.
Is this you contesting my definition of sex? If so, clearify.
It's funny because, if you think that only gender and sex are realited to eachother. And this definition of yours includes "or sometimes intersex division", therefore i'm obligated to think there is at least three genders. Female, Male, and Intersex. (Even though false, i'm proving a point)
Transgenderism
Con states: Such as identifying as someone who is transgender however, be assigned as (sex) male at birth.No matter what, a male who was born a male will always be a male.
Okay, I agree with pro. A biological male who was born as biological male, will always be a biological male. But may not identify as a male, but still is biological male.
Con states: In other words, gender is a is an identity, aka your own perception of who you are.Just because they perceive themselves that way doesn't make it reality. There are a such thing as false perceptions.
Already answered for the most part.
--
This will basically be pro saying : "Someone who identifies, even though they cant, will never be able to do what the biological sex can do".
Argument(Running out of characters)PronounsA lot of these things people have made up over the years to the point where it's out of hand, even when it comes to the pronouns Ze/hir/hirs, ze/zir/zirs.
Actually, I would've mentioned animals in this argument but I didn't. Animals do not have gender. That's why it was not mentioned.
In this graph, https://www.taconic.com/taconic-insights/quality/sex-vs-gender-preclinical-research.html , you will see the difference.
So, let me rewrite the graph:
Sex
> Humans, nonhuman animals, and cells
>Typically binary
>Male, female
> Intersex
> Biology
>Anatomy
> Physiology
>Chromosomes
>Hormones
>Gene expression
> Behavior
Gender
> Unique to humans
>Multifaceted and complex
>Exists on a continuum
>Can change over time
> Can differ from sex
>Feminine, masculine
> Her, him, they
>Social
>Cultural
>Psychological
>Political
> Behavior and roles
There's also a difference with identifying. For example, as you stated, "hermaphrodites", referring all intersex people as that is considered offensive. Or, calling someone gay a *f word*.
You can identify as for example, non-binary but be biologically female. Its how YOU identify yourself. Of course, you will always be biological female/male.
Con states: Cisgender is coresponding with your sex related to by birth however, that doesn't show that all other genders have to.(Not enough characters)Cisgender: of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex the person had or was identified as having at birthCisgender Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster This is literally the same definition of sex and like I said gender and sex are the same. This term should be nonexistent.
Source for what? What Cisgender is?
As for your video:
Now where getting into pronounces..
Gender versus Pronounces. Gender is like non-binary, pronounces for non-binary would be they/them. So, as a woman who identifies as a woman (cisgender), we would refer to them as there respected, she/her.
Anyways..
Nobodys mocking anyone. If your taking offense by somebody who you don't even know, and its not affecting you, it seems like a "you problem". Transwoman are simply identifying as they feel, why should woman take that it personal? Its no offense and sure not any crime.
That said, as a gender is a social construct and if I wanted to identify as non-binary, can.Did you feel this way ever since you were born? Or are you saying you can never feel this way for a long time but if you want to up and change your mind and decide tomorrow that you want to identify as non-binary, you can do that? I agree with the former.
When you say "you", i'm using this in general terms.
Some people do feel this way at birth or up to as they remember. Some people don't feel this way for awhile or don't realize it themselves.
Yes, anyone can shift genders as they choose. Some do, some don't.
Now let me dig deeper into the following: "you were born with a uterus and you are unable to give birth".I think this is false. Why? Because some "females" were not born with a uterus and infertile. Some were actually born with both parts.Let's be clear, I stated "you were not born with a uterus and you are unable to give birth." Con forgot to include the not. A simple misunderstanding. I wanted to clear that up to make sure Con's response to me was their legitimate response and not one based off of them thinking I said "you were born with a uterus" vs "you were not born with a uterus". I was saying a man is not born with a uterus and is unable to give birth which is a true statement. What you said was true too regarding women being infertile, as far as women being born without a uterus, it's a very rare case. About one in 5,000 but like I said there are only two genders. Con's response here does not disprove my argument.
It was me rushing with a few minutes, apologies. No misunderstanding, thanks for pointing it out. However, that's why my following below corresponds with the original: "you were not born ...".
As I mention above, you, yourself state "intersex".. which in your terms would mean its another gender.
Saying that these are rare cases does not disprove the fact that a woman must be able to be born with a uterus and give birth. Though, this is going off track a bit.
Also, your link above is not proved yet. It says, "could". And if you scroll down, it talks about the possible risks and consideration their still doing.
Round 3
Pro
#5
I merely used the definition of gender provided by Con. No contradiction displayed. I disagree that social construct should be used in the gender definition. I used sex in the argument as sex and gender are the same thing. I ask that Con explain how human interactions equate to someone claiming to be a gender that they were not born as?
Social construct definition: An idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society.
- Something that has been "created" and "accepted". This equates to something being made up. It should be unacceptable. This defies science, if you were born a female you can't identify as a male. Con's definition in the previous round included "not in objective reality". Social construct is not reality. I already proved so in the previous round. Gender simply should mean male and female only, not social construct.
This is irrevlent. See how it says gender? Not sex?Hermaphrodites = Sex NOT gender.
Sex and gender are the same.
That is sex not gender. To confirm, I would like to mention that nowhere in your resolution does it say I cannot include animals. Therefore, this really isn't helping your case in the slightest. But I won't be talking about aniamls, as ill explain later on.
- You can include animals if you'd like, it's up to you. Never mind, I see Con won't be using animals. I'd say this is helping my case as I've proven that that there aren't any cases of hermaphroditism in humans but I also animals have two sexes, just like humans do.
- Proved in the previous round that humans cannot have both male and female sex organs in response to "Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both."
Proof that gender and sex are the same
I wasn't changing the definitions provided by Con, as I said I took the important parts of both definitions, shortened them up and proved how they are the same, so all I did was take a chunk out of them both.
- Con stated: Gender is often defined as a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that varies between societies and over time. Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary. Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both.
- Con stated: Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
- Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary
- Sex is usually categorized as female or male
Both definitions include "categorized as male or female" this is proof that sex and gender are in fact the same. Gender is supposedly a so-called social construct which is a false reality. Again, you cannot identify as something you weren't born as.
Sex: The male, female, or sometimes intersex division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions or physical characteristics such as genitals, XX and XY chromosomes, etc.Is this you contesting my definition of sex? If so, clearify.
I wasn't contesting your definition as both of our definitions were correct and pretty much the same. I was just reinforcing the definition of sex providing a different one.
- You can identify as for example, non-binary but be biologically female. Its how YOU identify yourself. Of course, you will always be biological female/male. ✔️
- Okay, I agree with pro. A biological male who was born as biological male, will always be a biological male. But may not identify as a male, but still is biological male. ✔️
Con is helping my argument and proving my point with those two statements above.
For example, as you stated, "hermaphrodites", referring all intersex people as that is considered offensive. Or, calling someone gay a *f word*.
Hermaphrodite is a scientific/medical term, that's how I see it. I wasn't aware that it's considered offensive. Hermaphroditism doesn't occur in humans anyways so there goes that.
Nobodys mocking anyone. If your taking offense by somebody who you don't even know, and its not affecting you, it seems like a "you problem". Transwoman are simply identifying as they feel, why should woman take that it personal? Its no offense and sure not any crime.
It's definitely a lot of mockery going on, particularly with transwomen. They think of themselves as actual women and disrespect biological ones. I can see how biological women can get offended by it especially if they come in contact with these men with dresses and who wear makeup, hopefully they aren't rude because some can be as there's numerous of videos. This is one of them, proof that biological women are mocked:
When you say "you", i'm using this in general terms.Some people do feel this way at birth or up to as they remember. Some people don't feel this way for awhile or don't realize it themselves.Yes, anyone can shift genders as they choose. Some do, some don't.
I was actually asking you personally. I could understand if someone felt that way ever since birth but if you never felt that way since birth and then you magically decide to identify something you aren't? That's like me, a fully grown male adult in my 20's decide to wake up tomorrow and I now identify as female. Are you really telling me that makes sense? No. Especially as an adult who has gone through puberty and has had time to figure out who they are and has fully developed into adulthood.
- It's funny because, if you think that only gender and sex are realited to eachother. And this definition of yours includes "or sometimes intersex division", therefore i'm obligated to think there is at least three genders. Female, Male, and Intersex. (Even though false, i'm proving a point)
- As I mention above, you, yourself state "intersex".. which in your terms would mean its another gender.
I'll play devil's advocate for your case since your argument is gender and sex are different. Like I said last round I believe Intersex ties into sex.
Round 4
Con
#8
Thank you, pro, for your patience. Almost caught myself not responding again.
I merely used the definition of gender provided by Con. No contradiction displayed. I disagree that social construct should be used in the gender definition. I used sex in the argument as sex and gender are the same thing. I ask that Con explain how human interactions equate to someone claiming to be a gender that they were not born as?
As for defining this as a social construct, i'm just testing the waters a bit.
Practically you say its not a social construct because you think that sex and gender are the same.
So, sex = objective reality which means that gender is = objective reality.
But still, sex and gender are not the same thing.
You are born biologically with your sex, but not your gender.
I'd say this is helping my case as I've proven that that there aren't any cases of hermaphroditism in humans but I also animals have two sexes, just like humans do.
Animals don't usually categorized as sexes.
- Proved in the previous round that humans cannot have both male and female sex organs in response to "Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both."
This is gender identity; not about female or male sex organs,
Also, can't forget about intersex. It is possible.
Proof that gender and sex are the sameI wasn't changing the definitions provided by Con, as I said I took the important parts of both definitions, shortened them up and proved how they are the same, so all I did was take a chunk out of them both.
I think they validate without shortening, otherwise, it becomes broad.
- Con stated: Gender is often defined as a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that varies between societies and over time. Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary. Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both.
- Con stated: Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
- Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary
- Sex is usually categorized as female or male
Both definitions include "categorized as male or female" this is proof that sex and gender are in fact the same. Gender is supposedly a so-called social construct which is a false reality. Again, you cannot identify as something you weren't born as.
That doesn't mean they are the same.
"Humans eat"
"Animals eat"
Doesn't mean they are the same.
If you check your words, it says "usually" and "often", and if you use the full defintion there is a clear difference. This is why I wanted torefer back to the full defintion.
Huge difference with Gender: "Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self"
Huge difference with Sex: "biological attributes"
See the difference? Biological versus ones own internal sense of self.
I wasn't contesting your definition as both of our definitions were correct and pretty much the same. I was just reinforcing the definition of sex providing a different one
As of this definition, yeah, basically the same thing.
I was just questioning if it was you contesting the defintion or not.
Con is helping my argument and proving my point with those two statements above.
Okay, not really.
I may be proving that you cannot change sex, yes, but you can change gender.
I state you are biologically male (sex) but identify as female (gender).. So, not really, two different things.
Hermaphrodite is a scientific/medical term, that's how I see it. I wasn't aware that it's considered offensive. Hermaphroditism doesn't occur in humans anyways so there goes that.
Hermaphrodite was long changed as intersex, hermaphroditism is an older term.
Intersex does occur in humans.
It's definitely a lot of mockery going on, particularly with transwomen. They think of themselves as actual women and disrespect biological ones. I can see how biological women can get offended by it especially if they come in contact with these men with dresses and who wear makeup, hopefully they aren't rude because some can be as there's numerous of videos. This is one of them, proof that biological women are mocked:
Um.. offended by someone using makeup or dresses?
Are you implying that woman cant wear pants because that's usually what "men" wear?
See, the tables have turned. Now, men cant wear dresses?
I think it's quite silly if you get offended by someone wearing makeup or wearing dresses, that's called gatekeeping, they aren't just for woman. I would just laugh in their faces if they got offended or upset at me simply wearing makeup or a dress. If you don't like it, okay, keep moving. What the world would come to if everyone got their way. If someone didn't like something and it worked their way all the time. Its makeup and some dresses. What about it?
Transwoman can be rude, sure, but "woman" can as well. Transwoman arent all rude, but some might be, same thing applies for "woman". We are all rude in the end, aren't we?
I think they are just representing their own interal sense, nothing wrong with that. Do some transgender people mock "woman"? Yes, sure. But loads of transgender people don't.
Your link: Calls them Cisgender, alright, they make mistakes. I'm sure that "woman" and "men" make the same mistake and refer to them by the wrong gender, correct?
Got a bit off-topic with this, but you get the point.
I was actually asking you personally.
No comment, as of right now.
I could understand if someone felt that way ever since birth but if you never felt that way since birth and then you magically decide to identify something you aren't? That's like me, a fully grown male adult in my 20's decide to wake up tomorrow and I now identify as female. Are you really telling me that makes sense? No. Especially as an adult who has gone through puberty and has had time to figure out who they are and has fully developed into adulthood.
Some people do feel that way at birth yes. Then again, some people come to their sense of gender identity around the age of two.
Gender identity is known to develop in stages.
My graph in round two actually had explained the difference. Refer back to round two, if needed.
I'll play devil's advocate for your case since your argument is gender and sex are different. Like I said last round I believe Intersex ties into sex.
Then same thing applies then.
If you agree intersex is a sex, and gender and sex are the same, even if voters don't agree with me that they (gender and sex) not the same, there are at least three sexes and three genders by your standard.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Animals don't usually categorized as sexes.
Animals definitely do categorize as sex. Their sex is male and female, that's how reproduction exists. No source is needed for this as it is a fact and common sense. This has been existing since the beginning of time. Example, there's a a male or female dog. There's a male or female cat. Some animals are hermaphrodites with the exception of humans. If animals don't categorize as sex, what do they categorize as then? Apparently not gender. No, Animals Do Not Have Genders - Nautilus
I'm not saying you said they classify as gender/would say they classify as gender in the next round. Just was knocking that idea out.
That doesn't mean they are the same."Humans eat""Animals eat"Doesn't mean they are the same.If you check your words, it says "usually" and "often", and if you use the full defintion there is a clear difference. This is why I wanted torefer back to the full defintion.
They are the same. Humans and animals do eat, you further helped my point. What's the difference between the two eating? There is none.
Usually/often is basically the same thing. Slight difference in meaning but are the same thing at the end of the day. How? Both are adverbs of frequency that show how frequently an action takes place.
"Usually" vs. "Often" in the English Grammar | LanGeek | Under Similarities
Hermaphrodite was long changed as intersex, hermaphroditism is an older term.Intersex does occur in humans.
Understood. I acknowledge that intersex occurs in humans. The term hermaphrodite applies to animals that are not human (fish, worms etc) but we're talking about humans so we've come to an even ground.
Rebuttals | Trans calling woman "cis" point
Women wear pants just like men do, there are pants for women and then there are pants for men. They are made differently from each other. The thing is makeup and dresses are feminine, that's usually for women. Same with fingernail polish, I don't agree with men wearing fingernail polish but if that's something they want to do then knock yourself out it's your choice. Same with dresses. I personally don't have an issue with it I'm just speaking for women who have an issue with it all the while being mocked and disrespected. It's different if a man is wearing a dress and is respectful to women.
Men wearing makeup or dresses are fine, they can do what they want but don't mock actual biological women by calling them "cis woman" "birther" "chest feeder" "bleeder" all of which are disrespectful and dehumanizing. They are women and that's what makes them women, they aren't those names. It's ironic how trans women want to be women but call women those things. Some trans women are like that, not all ofc. I wouldn't want to be called a cis man, I am simply a man since I was born biologically male.
See how you're putting quotation marks around woman and man? Biological and real women and men btw. Are you dismissing the fact they are men and women? Are you saying that I am not a man? What you did is fine though right but if I say "trans woman" "trans man" it's off with my head. Logically it makes sense to say "trans woman" since they're a man no matter what. It makes no sense to put quotes around woman or man when that's what they are. Sure, anyone can be rude but ever since the LGBTQ+ movement started, trans people came in (particularly trans women I noticed) and want to push real biological women to the side and act as though they are women when they are not - and disrespect actual women.
Transwoman can be rude ✔️Transwoman arent all rude, but some might be ❌
Might be? No, they can be like you said prior.
Do some transgender people mock "woman"? Yes, sure. But loads of transgender people don't.
Loads of them don't? When possibly loads of them do. Okay. "might be" and "loads of transgender people don't" I see you're handling them with kid gloves like they're innocent, which is fine it's your opinion and prerogative.
Your link: Calls them Cisgender, alright, they make mistakes. I'm sure that *women and *men ✔️ make the same mistake and refer to them by the wrong gender, correct?
The difference is with trans women/trans people calling biological women/men "cis women/men" (that definitely has all the rights to have quotes around it) is that they intentionally (not mistakenly) call them that which is a flat out lie because they aren't cis, they are simply women. They do it to offend and denounce them actually being a woman while the trans women want to think of themselves as actual women when they are not. Most of them do this. Now with bio men and women who refer to trans women as men, that's not a mistake, that's the truth. They are referring them as the right gender, not the wrong gender. They are men and were born that way which is an undeniable fact. Unfortunately, they see that as an issue when people call them by their gender and get offended by the truth due to them being delusional, respectfully. Like I said though not all of them are like that and not all women are rude nor bothered with trans women. As long as respect is shown on both ends. I just notice bio women minding their business and trans women doing the most, just saying. Then when bio women speak out and defend themselves, they are the bad guy. It's the hypocrisy.
Agree to disagree. Everything else I've said in my earlier rounds still stands. Thanks for the debate.
Con
#10
I'm going to say it now, this debate got off-topic.
This is a debate about if there are two genders, and right now, in round five, pro is talking about how transgender people act. This is irrelevant to the conversation, so from this round right here, all my and my opponents rebuttals will be irrelevant to the resolution.
Let me reinstate my contentions.
Conclusion
This graph shows the difference between sex and gender. I ask voters keep it in mind.
Sex
> Humans, nonhuman animals, and cells
>Typically binary
>Male, female
> Intersex
> Biology
>Anatomy
> Physiology
>Chromosomes
>Hormones
>Gene expression
> Behavior
Gender
> Unique to humans
>Multifaceted and complex
>Exists on a continuum
>Can change over time
> Can differ from sex
>Feminine, masculine
> Her, him, they
>Social
>Cultural
>Psychological
>Political
> Behavior and roles
Gender is unique to only humans, not animals, not objects, etc. Gender is something that differs from sex, can correspond with gender, but doesn't have to be. Gender is expressing yourself through your own identification of yourself. It's something that may changes overtime, it depends on the person. Though it does often get confused with sex. Sex does not allow self identification, sex is something you are born with that can not be changed. Gender can change however, depending on how the person feels.
I have rebuttaled pro and I don't believe they have fulfilled their burden. If anything, they agreed to their at least, in their opinion, being three genders. They agreeded that intersex occurs in humans and is a sex. Meaning that, as you view these rounds, voters, please keep in mind that if you still choose my contentions that gender and sex were not good enough, remember that pro concedes that intersex occurs.
Even if pro was right that sex and gender are the same, there would be three.
Rebuttals/Opinionated Conversation:
Animals
Animals definitely do categorize as sex. Their sex is male and female, that's how reproduction exists. No source is needed for this as it is a fact and common sense. This has been existing since the beginning of time. Example, there's a a male or female dog. There's a male or female cat. Some animals are hermaphrodites with the exception of humans. If animals don't categorize as sex, what do they categorize as then? Apparently not gender. No, Animals Do Not Have Genders - NautilusI'm not saying you said they classify as gender/would say they classify as gender in the next round. Just was knocking that idea out.
Not all animals are female and males.
When I said animals don't usually, maybe not usually, that is wrong, what shouldve been said is some animals dont. Some animals do not have any sex at all, some have both, etc.. Which is why I didn't include them with animals. I also thought of another word, instead of sex, that was used for animals. But I can't think of it in this moment.
Futhermore, I didn't mention animals, being this debate is about gender.
They are the same. Humans and animals do eat, you further helped my point. What's the difference between the two eating? There is none.
I was hoping I didn't have to explain it, and my point would be seen.
Are humans and animals the same race? No. But can they both eat? Yes.
Can I identify as female that alligns with my sex? Yes. But does it mean that I have to? No.
Self identification versus something that is stuck with you.
Usually/often is basically the same thing. Slight difference in meaning but are the same thing at the end of the day. How? Both are adverbs of frequency that show how frequently an action takes place.
I don't know if you understood what I meant. My point of saying the definitions say "usually" and "often" was not comparing the two, but rather showing they are not limited to those two things.
Such as sex, its often categorized as female or male, but the word often does not mean all the time.
And gender is usually categorized as female, male or non-binary, but the word usually does not mean all the time.
Transgender mocking
The thing is makeup and dresses are feminine, that's usually for women. (Not enough characters) I personally don't have an issue with it I'm just speaking for women who have an issue with it all the while being mocked and disrespected. It's different if a man is wearing a dress and is respectful to women.
If dresses and makeup are feminine and transwoman want to be feminine, let them. Have you heard of femboys? They don't identify as females, but they dress feminine. Do you have to categorize "feminine" things only for woman.
Like said, all the jokes are on "you" if "you" feel disrespected by someone minding their business wearing clothes.
I think majority of transwoman are wearing a dress for themselves, not to discriminate woman.
Men wearing makeup or dresses are fine, they can do what they want but don't mock actual biological women by calling them "cis woman" "birther" "chest feeder" "bleeder" all of which are disrespectful and dehumanizing. They are women and that's what makes them women, they aren't those names. It's ironic how trans women want to be women but call women those things. (Not enough characters)
Don't lots of men call woman, hoes, or chicks? Chick is a base of insulting woman and "we" normalized it.
But when it comes down to things like that, now "we're" upset? Or are you upset at the fact they are transgender saying that? I do believe that calling them nicknames such as that, is disrespectful, yes. I, 100% agree. But don't get upset when you only take offense to one gender.
See how you're putting quotation marks around woman and man? Biological and real women and men btw. Are you dismissing the fact they are men and women? Are you saying that I am not a man? What you did is fine though right but if I say "trans woman" "trans man" it's off with my head.
I'm going to quickly address this - i'm not sure if your trying to turn the tides of me. When I put " " I showed it in the biased term of "woman" in the same way you used it. See how you refer to woman as only biologically woman? That's why I put quotations, showing your standard of woman.
In case I need to explain it more, "woman" was directed in the way you were using woman. I don't view woman that way, so I put quotations to show your view of woman.
Otherwise, I would say biologically woman, without quotations.
Might be? No, they can be like you said prior.
Both used in similar terms.
Transwoman have the potential to direct negative comments towards transwoman, meaning they can. Each and every transwoman has the potential.
However, not all do, some might be rude some might not be.
Loads of them don't? When possibly loads of them do. Okay. "might be" and "loads of transgender people don't" I see you're handling them with kid gloves like they're innocent, which is fine it's your opinion and prerogative.
Just because possibly loads of them do, a lot don't.
I'm not acting like their innocent, and I even agreeded that some of them are discriminating and mock woman. But you can't act like all them are discriminating. That is a biased and stigmatized opinion. It's like saying all people who are white are racist.
The difference is with trans women/trans people calling biological women/men "cis women/men" (that definitely has all the rights to have quotes around it)
Already explained with I had quotations.
is that they intentionally (not mistakenly) call them that which is a flat out lie because they aren't cis, they are simply women.
I think transwoman would want to be called woman, but they are called transwoman, sometimes, even denied pronounces of she/her.
Cisgender means it aligns with your sex, its like if their was a different word for anything. Usually and often, they both are used in an interchangeable manner. Do you think all transwoman wanted to be called transwoman instead of woman? Double standards, guys.
I do agree though, if a woman wants to be called a woman, we should respect that. Same thing applies for transwoman though.
They do it to offend and denounce them actually being a woman while the trans women want to think of themselves as actual women when they are not. Most of them do this.
I think transwoman are allowed to believe whatever they want, that applies to anyone. That's part of being a human.
But the question is, are they right for it?
I can assure you all or at least majority of them know they were not born a female, and as you can't go, they will never be born a female. But as far as identifying as a woman, yes, they can.
And identifying themselves, which means viewing themselves as females are okay. Tell me again, why are females upset about someone minding their own business identifying as a woman? Is it because they are in a dress? Oh, no, what will we do?
Now with bio men and women who refer to trans women as men, that's not a mistake, that's the truth. They are referring them as the right gender, not the wrong gender. They are men and were born that way which is an undeniable fact. Unfortunately, they see that as an issue when people call them by their gender and get offended by the truth due to them being delusional, respectfully. Like I said though not all of them are like that and not all women are rude nor bothered with trans women. As long as respect is shown on both ends. I just notice bio women minding their business and trans women doing the most, just saying. Then when bio women speak out and defend themselves, they are the bad guy. It's the hypocrisy.
They are referring to themselves as the right gender for them. But not for others.
If you call a transwoman a man, they most definitely have the right to call a ciswoman. Don't be upset.
It's hypocrisy on the "womans" side as well. Which I explain above.
I hope we get to redo this debate, I missed a few things I wanted to add.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
@BothAndDebate
@Arguements Bella3sp
Whether Devon wanted to make a point about how they viewed Sex and Gender as the same, or carelessness.
Allowing vagueness in title and description, lead to much of the debate being sidetracked.
'Ideas are subjective, words are subjective, and both change Bella3sp argues.
Bella3sp doesn't make the argument that sex and gender are the same,
But that they are different, though she also includes examples of intersex, to safeguard all her bases.
Devon spends too much time (Because of debate vagueness) stating that sex and gender are the same,
Which would be more fine if the debate was Sex and Gender are the same, or ought be viewed as the same.
Mostly Devon loses arguments because his title and description, as well as arguments made many fractured pieces in various directions.
Bella3sp was given at 'least two goalposts, of which she only needed to score one of any to win,
Whether gender as language changing, intersex as an example,
You 'don't want to give your opponent multiple goalposts.
. . .
If Devon had focused more on historical examples of people defining sex and gender as the same, I think they would have done better, but again,
Devon not only has to prove claim they are the same, but that there are only 2.
And debate doesn't even say 'human.
@Sources Tie
Both sides used sources to try to back their claims.
@Legibility Tie
When a debate goes to piecemeal, with a ton of grey boxes,
And 'many words sentences specifically disagreed on,
My concentration in following the debate, fractures a bit,
Though this might just be a me thing,
But both did this.
@Conduct Tie
Bella3sp didn't seem to intentionally try to skip rounds,
Devon Extend doesn't count as argument,
No one 'particularly rude, tie.
@NoOneInParticular
I suggest you don't read this, as it's more for me,
But fee l free if you want to, it just rambles, so I don't recommend it.
Useful generalities, a trait of people using concepts,
Men are stronger than women,
People 'specifically mean human men and women,
Praying Mantis Females are stronger than Male Praying Mantis,
People with X or Y genes,
I don't really know how that works with various animals, or plants.
Dresses are feminine,
Eh, kilts, togas.
"Gender is something you choose to identify as"
Doesn't really make sense to me, or gender in general.
Some cultures used eunuchs in harems,
Some people choose to identify as American, yet xenophobic Americans might not call them American, even if according to the law they have papers,
Course one's 'sex ought make them a man or a woman, objectively,
But then some people get treated as the opposite sex in prison,
Even the objective, is subject to subjective people,
Rambling.
'Does gender only appear in humans,
I know 'self identifying comes up a lot in some definitions of gender,
But I've see videos of seals abusing penguins,
Yeah this thought is weird, but eventually in my mind it makes an example.
Course one doesn't identify an X as an X, even if one treats an X as an X, they think of it as an X I can use to X.
The 'gentler sex,
Some Victorian man might say of women,
But even an effeminate man, wouldn't say the effeminate man was 'of, but perhaps 'like the gentler sex.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
There's really not too much for me to say here.
I agree with Con that this debate got pretty far off topic as you each went into discussions of behavior rather than the existence of distinct genders. It didn't help the debate to go off on this tangent or any of the others regarding how either side felt on the issue. It's a fact debate. Debate the existence of the fact.
Pro basically lets Con both get the ball rolling and, by virtue of his position in the debate, have the last word, which is never a great combination, but it's still possible to win even giving yourself that kind of handicap. I will say that Pro automatically wins conduct due to the forfeit, but let's talk about the arguments.
First off, by conceding that intersex occurs in humans, Pro concedes the debate. If I buy his argument that gender and sex are identical, then intersex + male + female = 3 genders. That's more than 2, so I consider that a concession of the debate overall.
Second, I'm not really sure I understand Pro's argument. He largely dismisses the definition provided for gender by Con, arguing that a social construct is not objective fact and therefore does not exist. In that case, I think Pro needed to offer an alternate definition rather than just saying that Pro's definition is flawed. If you want to argue that the lack of any external validation necessarily makes the entire concept of a social construct or self-definition invalid because it is fabricated within the mind, then there needs to be another definition on the table. Asserting over and over again that sex and gender are the same doesn't offer a definition - it's just Pro clarifying his own views on the issue, not providing any way to externally validate his views. The closest I get to that is an argument from R2 about how job applications use the term gender in the same way he would use sex, which doesn't tell me why they're correct. Again, this is a fact debate. You have to establish that this is the fact. So, whether I agree with Pro or not, Con's the only one that's providing me with a definition I can use to adequately explain what gender is. Even if it's entirely fabricated, if that's part of the definition of gender, then I'm forced to accept that gender is fabricated... which isn't a great position for Pro to be in, since that necessarily means there can be more genders resulting from that fabrication.
So, long story short, Pro is asking judges to do a lot with his arguments and not really justifying it. He's asking that judges conflate sex and gender because the definition for gender necessitates some subjectivity, but doesn't tell me why subjectivity invalidates the definition or provide me an alternate definition to work with. He cherry-picks portions of his opponents' definition to make the case for him, but excludes essential context. Even if I end up agreeing entirely that the perception of gender clashing with sex is delusional, that only establishes that gender and sex should consistently align, not that gender doesn't exist at least somewhat independently of sex (they can be wrong in their perceptions of themselves, but that doesn't make the perception nonexistent nor does that tell me that that perception is not their assumed gender). I think if the debate had stayed a little more focused on the topic, this might have been more interesting, but as it is there's just not a lot to pick up from Pro's side in the debate, whereas Con better establishes the facts regarding gender. So that's where my vote goes.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
In short:
Aside from pro repeating "Sex and gender are the same" like a broken record, he attempts to flip con's evidence which states "male, female or nonbinary" as proof there are only two. That set obviously contains three. While con doesn't explicitly mention it, 3 <> 2. Con hammers this home, and pro drops it, leaving "intersex" as a third gender by their own standards.
At length:
Pro makes a case reliant upon sex and gender being identical. Con dismantles this with definitions, and shows that gender is a variable social construct.
Pro counters that social constructs aren't real... This is a line of reasoning which cannot go anywhere, since language is a social construct. Misrepresenting cons definitions (which con caught and well defended) does not help this at all.
Pro points out hermaphrodites exist, con points back to sex and gender being different words.
Pro does better later with pointing out perception and reality differ. A major weakness to their case is not leading with this. As is, it's presented as a sub point mid-way into their case, after arguing people cannot do things people self-evidently do. He goes on to argue gender should be "male, female, or sometimes intersex" ... Con wastes no time in catching this, even while pointing out it's wrong when applied to gender.
Pro argues non-cisgendered people are offensive (after arguing cis-gendered shouldn't exist, which leaves me scratching my head since if we got rid of everyone not trans... 🤯). It spirals off on this side tangent, including a video of a very beautiful woman complaining about the term cis (ok, some women are offended; this doesn't support the resolution).
Conduct for forfeiture.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
If this was not a point system, I would vote tie . However, some points may be more than others.
first I will explain sources. Both provide exallent sources to express their position. I dont know why con gave restrictions on sources, but I could be reading that wrong - benefit of doubt. So tie there.
Conduct? Unfortunately pro does go off topic. Im really torn about this point because con forfieted a round. I half want to votes as others do, but half dont. Others have voted against those who forfiet. However, considering any debate, what affects audience more? Taking debate off topic. Wherher on purpose or accident, pro takes away from main debate. I see all of this as conduct. Also, I dont like it when people say " I proved x" we gotta stop doing that as a collective.
Which participant's arguments had significantly better legibility?
Neither. Debate started with circular reasoning, and then continued with it. This is true for both con and pro. I also put articulation under this category because articulation allows us to understand pro/com position as they comnect the dots for us.
Which participant provided more convincing arguments?
As I read con's approach, I got the vibe that everything is being explained to me as it is. Rebuttles including, this is x, that is y, that is z. Listing genders is prime example. However this does not explain why. Even in rebuttles.
Pro had the same thing going, but had a saving grace from a rebuttle that I think went over some heads. I am not able to determine how well Pro can articulate the point but I try not to count articulation against debators ability to convince others.
What is the rebuttle? Pro tried to point out that gender as it is understood (or explained by con) could not exist because - as con explained - was a construct. I read pro's comments to indicate that the social construct is inherently false because it is not real. I wish pro had stayed on this path and clarified why he thought his own position was accurate. Same with con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Sex, Sexuality, Sexual Orientation, and gender are all different things. Pro tried to conflate Gender and Sex as the same thing and then indirectly admitted that intersex is a thing.
Pro had a few very clear examples on how to tie this up in a bow and mails it for Grandma's birthday, alas they did not. It was a very one-sided debate. Pro had a very poor start. They did not recover from it in whole or in part. I am not sure why this turned into a huge list of activities, actions and gender identification tendencies other than, it proved the point.
I accept the distinction between sex and gender as presented by Con.
Pro gets a point for conduct on the forfeit.
Note to Pro... you need to open stronger.
Oh no, I'm being serious, and just forgot or never knew if you were a guy or girl,
People's use of the word gender just has me confused at times, so I just put both in there. Sex/Gender.
I'd say ideologically I view myself more on your side, in 'this debate,
'Generally speaking,
But I also think you didn't do yourself favors in your structuring of the debate.
Are you being serious? Or sarcasm I can't tell. I assume cuz you picked Con as winner and you're purposely calling me they? Or am I tripping lol
Heh,
Quite possible I knew it in the past but forget,
But jah, not knowing or forgetting your sex/gender, was a reason for me saying they.
@Barney Ok I'll take that into consideration
@Lemming I thought you already knew I was a guy especially our prior interactions but just to let you know I'm male. I see you kept saying "they" in the vote instead of he. I admit I kinda have that habit to say they as well because I don't wanna offend anyone especially nowadays but don't worry I'm not one of those "did you just assume my gender" people lol. No offense to those people
As the instigator you’re already at a slight disadvantage, since the other side gets the last word
Letting them effectively get the first word in too, can be hard to overcome.
Thanks for voting. You are right I should've opened stronger. I should've waived first round. I do better letting someone post their argument first and then me responding to it
No problem, I don't mind. Thanks.
I'll work on it, should have it up before the deadline.
they're both the same . i see you are saying gender and sex are different , i accept your opinion . agree to disagree
Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary
Sex is usually categorized as female or male
Both definitions include "categorized as male or female" this is proof that sex and gender are in fact the same.
ok
so 1+1=2
and 1+1+1 = 3
since both include "1+1", 2=3.
(just a fallacy i noticed in ur args_)
I also @'ed everyone since its 4 days left of the voting period and I don't wanna lose off of one single vote I want it to be different votes and opinions. Plus I knew for some reason this first vote was gonna pick Con. Just that feeling. Not saying this to be negative just saying I knew it'd happen lol too much like right.
And ok try and vote and see what happens ig.
It means your Rating won't change, whether you win, tie or lose.
What's the difference between the two? Sorry haven't been on this site in a while. Is it because I started on here again last month so fairly new or what? Does it mean you can't vote on it since it's standard?
Oh ok thanks for letting me know. Alright I won't take it personal then, all good.
This is not a Rated debate. Neither was your rap battle against 'FishChaser' who has basically self snitched who he is by acting so obviously like Type1 at this point. Idc as I believe he is reformed relatively at least, still rude as hell.
The default changed since your King8 account. It is now defaulted to Standard which means unrated. The alternative is Rated.
Just to let you know, some judges don't vote conduct based on a forfiet. Even some people like AleutianTexan don't vote on conduct at all and only arguments.
Though, I am alright with losing conduct, just wanted to let you know.
What do you mean unrated?
I worked hard in this debate so I want a lot of people to vote, that's why I @'d everyone as I assume they know how to vote.
You can vote against me, just make sure it's fair and aligns with the rules. I don't take votes personally.
This is unrated like your rap battle against Type1, first of all. So idk why you care that hard to ping that many.
Secondly, what if I vote against you?
Are you sure you want to force me out of neutrality?
Please vote
Please vote
Please vote
I never thought I would witness such a controversial topic on DART.
Science has not developed in regards to gender. It’s been perverted by those I previously mentioned, for whom the left and the trans cultists have honed in on to capitalize in their excuses to rationalize and justify their sexual perversions. Fact.
Look at the dates.
Also, science has developed and changed defintions to match with it.
Not that I know the actual scientific backup behind your defintions, hints the " ".
“… has "less scientific backup" than other defintions.”??
You’re kidding, right?
Current iterations of the term are what lack any scientific evidence.
You clearly don’t know the true origins of the whole trans/queer ideology movement, do you!?! It started in the early 90s with so-called German sexologists who were proven Pedophiles and frustrates sexual deviants. That’s where the term cis/cissexualuty/cisgender came from - pedos!!!
Yeah.. my loss would've been an automatic loss in this debate if I used that defintion. It favors pro more than it would favor me in almost all if not all aspects.
But as said, I won't be using a defintion that now, has "less scientific backup" than other defintions.
Your loss. Not mine.
The original meaning of the term retains the most integrity.
The bullshit twisted made up convenient definition. Is merely to pacify the left and the clowns claiming otherwise using their fictitious made up term. This includes any leftist with an agenda with a piece of paper from some university over their head claiming to be a science major.
Thanks, but no thanks?
I get you have defintions you like, cool, but for this debate I won't be using them.. Either its an old defintion as I see from dates and now has been changed more in society or just simply not fitting for my idea in this debate.
Many defintions from health care to other websites have far different definitions that are like mine. And so far, I agree with those definition but thanks.
Your definition of 'gender' is all wrong:
gender (n.)
c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also "(male or female) sex," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
The unetymological -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (compare sound (n.1)). Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. Jespersen ("Philosophy of Grammar," 1924) defines grammatical gender by reference to the Indo-European distinction of masculine, feminine, neuter, "whether the division be based on the natural division into two sexes, or on that between animate and inanimate, or on something else."
The "male-or-female sex" sense of the word is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender
Your definition is the liberal made up term.
bump
Sure
My bad, looked at the time per arguments do you mind increasing to a week?
Otherwise, I might lose track of time.
Sorry I meant to be Pro. Got it confused. Thanks for commenting about my mistake
You want to be con?