Instigator / Pro
7
1500
rating
9
debates
55.56%
won
Topic
#5644
U can't accept trans ppl w/out accepting RCTA ppl
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
0
Better conduct
1
0
After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
Strawbbycake
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
10
debates
30.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Sorry if I didn't respond right away, I had to do other things. I don't spend all my time on this website, that's why argument time is about a week. No need to rush.
Alright, so the reason why I find it somewhat hypocritical to not accept RCTA (even though I'm against it) while accepting transgender people is because they both have similar justifications.
A trans person can say they are trans because they never felt right in their body, they don't fit in with other people of their assigned gender, etc. Because being transgender is accepted by almost everyone but religious groups, there's a name for it, gender dysphoria.
But RCTA people often justify their new identity with those same reasons. They say it never felt right, they fit with the other race better, and they feel more "connected" to the other culture or race than their own. Shallow? Yes. But only when it's RCTA.
I don't intend to hate people because everyone deserves a chance at life no matter how they see themselves, but i noticed a pattern where trans people say they dont fit because they feel uncomfortable in feminine clothes, like their hair short, and overall couldnt feel feminine. And with trans men it's them being unable to feel masculine.
To me it's strange they equate shallow feminine stuff with being female. Or shallow superficial masculine stuff with being male, but that can be for another debate. It is important to note that a lot of trans people often adopt stereotypically gendered clothes of their gender identity as well. This is quite similar to RCTA people attempting to have Asian eyes, darker skin, or whatever else they think best represents the race they wanna be.
Now we can try to find a biological cause for gender dysphoria, and there were a few possibilities, but note: THERE IS NO 100% CERTAIN CAUSE FOR BEING TRANSGENDER YET, as hypotheses are still being tested out.
A link I see mentioned a lot is genetics. These proposed genetics appear to be linked to hormones, but do hormones determine gender then? What about women or men with hormonal problems, such as PCOS? I don't think hormones can make you identify as transgender, whether in the brain or somewhere else. Another link I see mentioned is that trans women, for example, tend to have more "female" parts of the brain, but what does it mean to have a "female" brain? Is a normal brain not female? Does this mean a smaller brain? How can a brain be "female?" If you know go ahead and tell me in the next argument.
What I'm trying to say is, if transgender people should just be accepted just because they identify as so, like people accepting you can be left or right handed, regardless of whether or not there is a biological cause (which would be a disaster because anti trans people would target said cause), then why can't RCTA people be accepted simply because they identify as so?
And before you say it's cuz you can't change race, RACE IS NOT A THING (sorry of it sounds aggressive, I needed to emphasize it). Let me explain.
The concept of human beings being a sub species of a species wasn't around until the 1800s. Racial discrimination wasn't really a thing before mass white colonization, people discriminated because of WHERE you were from, not because you have darker skin necessarily.
For whatever reason, "scientists" (if you can call them that) have decided that if a human has different features than another, it must be another subspecies. Thats how the caucasian, black, mongoloid, etc came about. They even tried to justify it by looking at so called differences in skulls between caucasian and, say, mongoloid or some other "race." It's wrong. They're basically putting a human into a racial category like the way a scientist would classify a butterfly into another subspecies because of differences in color of wings, wingspan, etc. Human is human, we just look different. Race is a superficial thing that only exists because of looks. Thats it. I am asian because of how I look. Even if I were to be born in America and have family there for generations, I am still asian. Why? Because I look asian. The only natives to america are native americans. They can say theyre american. White americans today don't say theyre irish american or english american or german american unless if their parents were european maybe. No, they say they're american. Why? Cuz they look white. And i dont, so how can I just be american? I needed a label because I dont look the part. I have monolids, flatter (excuse me for my political incorrectness) face, yellow overtone, darker hair. I have these features so there needed to be clarification. I'm Asian because I was born in Asia and my parents were born in Asia and lived my early childhood in Asia, I'm not just my monolids and yellow overtone.
And to make a final point on why race isn't real. What about Arabs? The US census considers Arabs white. I know two guys that are Arab, I don't think either of them are mixed. One had fair skin, brown curly hair, and cool blue green eyes. The other had black curly hair and darker skin. Based on the census, both of them would be white.
And yet if you were to look at them, only one of them would be "white," to you. If you didn't know they were Arab, you'd think one was white, the other Arab. It would sound ridiculous if the darker guy was considered "white" because white to people meant someone with pale skin, lighter eyes and hair, with taller nose, thinner lips, almond or round eyes. Notice how I'm talking about features. Most people dont think location when considering race, so there is no biological factor. Consider Arabs again. Saudi Arabia is West Asia, if we were to go by continents. Do a google search and you will see more than West Asia, you'll see middle east, eurasia, africa, etc. People (well, white ppl) had to come up with another made up region because apparently they're not Asian enough. You can argue Saudi Arabia is different from the rest of Asia culturally, but why can't people accept a unique and diverse Asia?
Because Middle Eastern folks (for clarification, I still dont believe in a middle east), look a certain way, and Asians as we think of them look a certain way, and we like to group similar looking and acting people together. Asian means a certain thing already, and those folks dont look the part, so middle eastern it is. Now it's even more problematic because Asian now means EAST asian, forgetting central, west, south, and southeast asian. Yes, really.
Now that might make it sound like RCTA still shouldnt be valid, because I went on a whole mini rant on why race aint real, but that means they cant be accused of being transracial. They cant be accused of trying to change their race, because there is NO race to change. There are other things RCTA does that wrong ofc, but RCTA isnt really RCTA. Yet the people that are against RCTA believe and say race is a thing. A real thing. And that theyre wrong for changing that real thing.
SEX is real and biological (i dont know exactly how gender is different from sex, cuz to me it seems like it's a personality, liking dolls and pink and dresses means your gender identity is female, but should your interests make you less of your sex, and take precedence over it? You like pink so you cant be a man? Cant play sports so you can't be a man? You need to be transgender? However idk everything, so please explain if you can. I cant exactly invalidate the idea of gender yet until someone explains it. All i know is that sex is a thing). But changing sex, a real thing, is valid, and NOT wrong.
It can be argued RCTA is stereotyping people, and trans people arent. However, I have seen that a lot of GENUINE trans people really try to look like their gender identity. They dont flaunt they're trans. They want people to see them as their gender identity.
A trans man cuts his hair short, pants, flannel (just an example, i know not all boys and men dress like this), chain necklace (bonus pts if its gold), sunglasses, backwards cap, play video games, watch sports, like, you get the idea. And transwomen wear dresses, wear heels, tons of makeup, hair is long or curled, you see? I havent seen a trans person wear androgynous clothes or clothes that match that of their assigned sex. Idk if there are trans people that do and if they do, I wonder why they feel they are trans then, or whar is it about them that still stood out to them as female. Some women who are tomboys arent trans. If looks and clothes arent why a person discovers they're trans, then what is?
Basically, if they aren't stereotyping, why are RCTA people? And if they arent stereotyping, how are they hurting people?
Sorry if this is too long, if you skimmed and scrolled through, here's a summary of what I said above:
1. Race isnt a thing (made up to be used as a tool to make POCs inferior when theyre not). Although this is a summary, please read my explanation on why it's not a thing or research, its crucial to my argument, and i'd rather not repeat my points again because you didn't see it. Also, it's good for society to make race not a thing (as though it wasnt fictional already).
2. Therefore, because of point 1, RCTA arent rcta, they not white turning into asian. It can be argued theyre just an american or european (for example) wanting to wear east asian popular fashion and wear popular east asian makeup. Therefore, since the thing is made up, theyre not changing into anything or from anything.
3. BUT, a lot of people are against RCTA because its not valid, you cant change race. So basically you cant change into a made up thing. Thats like saying you cant change from unicorn to mermaid. Neither exist, so that sentence itself is a lie.
4. However, SEX, as in male and female, have been observed in even animals (for my atheist peeps, lesser animals like rabbits, since humans are animals) as well as intersex and sex being unclear. Point is, there is a sex, or lack of it. It's a real thing. It isnt a social construct, otherwise, transGENDER is a social construct. If being a woman is a social construct, isnt being a transwoman a social construct as well?
5. Because of point 4, if people changing what is a biological and real fact about them is OK, then why cant RCTA people, changing a FICTIONAL fact, ISNT ok? And if RCTA people are stereotyping, why aren't trans people because when they believe they're a woman, they wear dresses, have longer hair, wear makeup, SUBTLY suggesting they wouldnt be a woman otherwise, when there are many women who do those things and are still cisgender.
6. As of currently, there are ideas on why trans people are trans, but none accepted just YET. So basically, it's still unknown. Therefore, if changing sex without necessarily being born predisposed to is ok, why isnt changing a nonexistent race not ok?
People that support trans dont support those same reasons for RCTA. They basically believe race cant be changed and is a real thing. If race has a biological cause, or is real, why the double standard? If race is real, and gender/sex isnt, why? If assigned sex is separate from gender, why does gender take precedence over sex? Transwomen and their advocates say theyre REAL women for example, and as real as cisgender women.
What makes trans people different from RCTA people? Why do they get to identify as their identity and not RCTA? That is the main question that hopefully you can answer.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Uh oh, my debating opponent couldnt make it.
They're already in a lot of other debates anyways. Back to you, con
Round 3
Round 4
Pro
#7
I hope whatever the other guy is doing is fulfilling enough to take time off debateart.
Maybe theyre back to school as well?
Eh, its ok, I wont make any new arguments until you made one
Sheet. Couldn't make it.
Bro didn't publish an argument. He published a research.
Your first argument published is somewhat disappointing me.
Besides that, It's good that you published as early as possible.
Alrighty, just published my argument, i dont get notifications and we may be in different time zones, so if you need a scheduled time when I need to respond, you can tell me that. Otherwise, you'll have to either wait and check everyday or forfeit the round.
If the time is scheduled, make sure it is a range (2:00 pm-3:00PM PDT for example) because I can be busy, forget, or take too long to come up with a response. This argument has taken me about an hour or two to finish. It sucks using a phone for typing sometimes.
Those people who forfeit debates and not respond are actual clowns.
Imagine if we treated race like gender…
“Ethnicity is what you’re born with, race is what you identity as”
💀
It’s funny to think about… We are just a few transracial activists in Marriam-Webster away from having a changed definition, of which the resulting determinist fallacy will erroneously guide our discourse on the issue from then on
OP is right and we live in a 🤡 🌎
People that are transgender obviously have "transgender age" due to transgender people having ID(s) identifiable across nations (therefore, capable of being pointed out, or mentioned, or accused of), nations give out ID for any transgender people. This stands "true". Also the term "age" here is quantifiable for chronological age, biological age, identity age (All 3 elements interconnected).
Trans age too?
Are you going to respond?
F*ck it. I'm doing this debate due to the unjust history with my previous "last considered debate" that I had no taste of.