Instigator / Con

lacr3000

1500

rating

debates

50.0%

won

Topic

#5872

Gender Affirming Sugery Should be Illegal in the United States.

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

SpookyTown

Tags

Politics

Parameters

Publication date: 12.25.2024 07:41AM
Last updated date: 02.01.2025 02:52PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 12,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Pro

SpookyTown

1500

rating

debates

100.0%

won

Description

THBT: Gender-affirming surgery should not be illegal in the United States.

BOP: The burden of proof falls upon Pro, who argues that gender-affirming surgeries should not remain legal in the United States.

Definitions:

Gender-Affirming Surgery: Surgery undergone by a transgender person in order to alter their physical sexual characteristics to match their gender identity.

Sex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided based on their reproductive functions.

Gender: The male sex or the female sex when considered concerning social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.

Rules:
1. All previously mentioned points in the description, including the BOP and definitions are agreed upon by both participants.
2. No new arguments in the final round.

Round 1

lacr3000

12.27.2024 08:38AM

Con

Introduction:

Thank you to my opponent, SpookyTown, for accepting this debate. The focus of this debate is whether gender affirming surgery (GAS) should be illegal in the United States. As Con, I will be arguing that GAS should be legal.

Now, for my primary points.

1. Human Rights:

I firmly believe that every person should have unalienable rights over their own bodies, and that applies directly to cases of GAS. Regardless of public opinion on the matter, an individual should be able to undergo GAS because of their rights over their body.

2. Legal Consistency:

Banning GAS would create an incredibly concerning precedent regarding the issue of bodily autonomy, as many currently legal activities fall in the same realm as GAS. Things like tattoo's, body piercings, body modifications, and plastic surgery are all similar to GAS in their legality. It would be proper for GAS to follow suit.

3. Government Neutrality:

The government is obligated to stay neutral in matter of personal identity and healthcare. Restricting access to GAS on moral or political grounds would be an improper use of government power.

Final Remarks:

This initial post is quite short, as the idea behind my stance is quite simple, but I believe I have made myself clear. Banning GAS would simply be a violation of the personal freedoms we hold dear in the United States.

SpookyTown

12.29.2024 07:13AM

Pro

Thank you to my opponent for presenting their arguments thoughtfully and engaging in this debate. While your points are well-articulated, I believe the issue of gender-affirming surgery warrants a deeper examination of its after effects.

1. Human Rights and Bodily Autonomy

While individual autonomy is essential, the principle of bodily autonomy is not absolute and can be limited when it conflicts with societal interests or risks irreversible harm. GAS involves irreversible medical procedures, often performed on individuals experiencing gender dysphoria, a condition that can sometimes be alleviated through less invasive psychological or hormonal interventions. Furthermore, there is evidence that some individuals regret undergoing such surgeries, highlighting the potential for long-term harm. The state has a duty to protect individuals, especially vulnerable ones, from making decisions that may result in significant and permanent harm.

2. Legal Consistency

The comparison of GAS to tattoos, piercings, or cosmetic surgeries oversimplifies the issue. Unlike tattoos or piercings, GAS involves complex, irreversible procedures with significant medical risks, including complications from surgery, post-operative infections, and psychological distress in cases of regret. These surgeries also have a far-reaching impact on a person's physical and mental well-being, unlike elective cosmetic modifications. Therefore, it is reasonable to treat GAS as a distinct category requiring stricter oversight or prohibition.

3. Government Neutrality

The government has a role in regulating healthcare to ensure safety and efficacy. Allowing GAS may contradict this responsibility because evidence regarding its long-term effectiveness in improving mental health outcomes is inconclusive. In fact, some studies indicate that the rates of suicide and depression among individuals who undergo GAS remain high, suggesting that the surgery is not a guaranteed solution. By restricting GAS, the government would not be interfering in personal identity but rather fulfilling its duty to protect citizens from potentially harmful medical practices.

4. Concerns About Irreversibility

Gender-affirming surgeries involve permanent changes to a person's body that cannot be undone. Many individuals, particularly younger patients, may not fully comprehend the lifelong implications of these procedures. Research has shown that some individuals detransition later in life and regret undergoing irreversible surgeries, which raises ethical concerns about informed consent, especially among minors.

5. Alternative Solutions:

The focus should be on providing alternative treatments that do not involve irreversible medical procedures. Counseling, therapy, and non-surgical interventions can help individuals navigate gender dysphoria without resorting to permanent alterations. Promoting these alternatives would ensure that individuals have the opportunity to explore their identity without risking regret.

6. Financial and Social Implications

GAS is a costly procedure that often requires additional surgeries for complications or revisions, placing a financial burden on individuals and the healthcare system. Legalizing GAS may also pressure insurance companies to cover these procedures, diverting resources from other essential healthcare services. This could lead to increased healthcare costs for society as a whole.

Conclusion

While the rights of individuals are important, they must be balanced against ethical considerations, medical risks, and societal impacts. The irreversible nature of GAS, combined with its potential for harm and the availability of alternative treatments, provides a strong rationale for its illegality in the United States.

Round 2

lacr3000

12.31.2024 07:13AM

Con

Forfeited

SpookyTown

12.31.2024 07:22AM

Pro

Since my opponent has forfeited this round, I will take this opportunity to highlight additional concerns regarding the legalization of gender-affirming surgeries in the US.

1. Gender-affirming surgeries are irreversible and can lead to regret if an individual later realizes the procedure did not align with their long-term identity.

There is insufficient long-term research to fully understand the physical and psychological impacts of these surgeries.

2. Minors may lack the maturity to make life-altering decisions and should not undergo such surgeries, even with parental consent.

Decisions made during adolescence might not align with the individual’s feelings or identity in adulthood.

3. Surgical procedures carry significant risks, such as infections, scarring, and the potential need for additional corrective surgeries.

Performing surgeries that alter healthy bodies raises ethical concerns, especially for non-life-threatening conditions.

4. Gender dysphoria can be addressed through therapy or non-surgical means, which may be more appropriate and less invasive.

Cases of post-surgical regret highlight that these procedures do not always resolve gender dysphoria.

5. Gender-affirming surgery challenges traditional gender norms, which can create societal discord.

The medical and pharmaceutical industries may exploit vulnerable individuals seeking these surgeries for profit.

6. Covering gender-affirming surgeries through public or private insurance places a financial burden on taxpayers and premium-payers.

Medical resources should be allocated to life-threatening conditions rather than elective surgeries.

7. Altering one’s biological sex conflicts with the sanctity of the human body and God-given identity, as held by many religious beliefs.

Such procedures are considered unnatural and contrary to societal values by certain moral perspectives.

Round 3

lacr3000

01.02.2025 07:22AM

Con

Forfeited

SpookyTown

01.02.2025 02:52PM

Pro

This topic demands a thoughtful discussion. However, my opponent has forfeited two consecutive rounds, showing a lack of seriousness toward this issue. This disregard undermines the integrity of the debate, but I will continue to present well-reasoned arguments to ensure the discussion remains meaningful.

1. The legal allowance of gender-affirming surgeries enables irreversible alterations to the human body based on fleeting emotions or external pressures, betraying vulnerable individuals under the guise of "progressive healthcare."

2. Gender-affirming surgeries have created an exploitative industry where profit-hungry medical institutions capitalize on confusion and pain, raking in billions while leaving patients with emotional and physical scars.

3. Legalizing gender-affirming surgery dismisses biological science in favor of subjective feelings, undermining the rational foundation of medical practice.

4. The normalization of gender-affirming surgeries promotes confusion among younger generations and destabilizes societal cohesion and intergenerational stability.

5. The legality of these surgeries often results in the coercion of parents or their exclusion from decisions about their children’s bodies, violating parental rights and safeguarding principles.

6. Long-term studies on the outcomes of gender-affirming surgery remain inadequate, making its legalization akin to state-sanctioned experimental medicine tramples medical ethics.

Articles worth reading:

nypost.com/2024/08/19/us-news/activist-who-warns-about-trans-top-surgery-is-facing-breast-cancer/

https://www.them.us/story/planned-parenthood-lawsuit-gender-affirming-care

Best.Korea

12.25.2024 11:22AM

Not sure if I want to argue against trans rights.

Casey_Risk

01.03.2025 06:05AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Full forfeiture

Lemming

01.03.2025 05:39AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Title
Is advantageous to Con I think. As it is broad, but limited to USA.

Description
Also advantageous to Con, as they explicitly put the BoP on Pro in this debate in the description.

lacr3000 R1
All three are values, that I think Americans commonly like. A strong argument I'd say.
I suppose if I was Pro, I might try to argue that said American values are wrong, that even if such are commonly held by Americans, Americans should limit their values in some places.
Not that I 'think such, and I still think it could be hard to argue.

SpookyTown R1
Pro would do well to 'cite examples of
"the principle of bodily autonomy is not absolute and can be limited when it conflicts with societal interests or risks irreversible harm."
Not that such don't exist.

While Pro 'is making good arguments of possible dangers of gender affirming surgery, they would do well to show examples/history/law of other activities America has banned.
For example,
"Scleral tattooing is illegal in the American states Oklahoma and Indiana and the Canadian provinces Ontario and Saskatchewan."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scleral_tattooing#:~:text=Rather%20than%20being%20injected%20into,Canadian%20provinces%20Ontario%20and%20Saskatchewan.
However such is a relatively 'recent law I think.

Government role in healthcare is good.
Though it is vague.

Pro adds on with dangers of surgery, and existence of possible other options.
Though I think Con still has a leg they 'could stand on, with how big Americans are on their freedom.

Financial argument not as strong to me, as I don't think surgery would 'have to be covered by healthcare. And could be made a purely individual cost.
Pros own argument of alternate treatments could work against them here.

lacr3000 R2
If no explanation for missed round occurs, going to count as conduct hit,
Also bad for Con is that have not addressed Pros arguments, giving Pro an advantage.

SpookyTown R2
Irreversible care not the 'strongest argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlBP5gUM40g
Neuralink will need to be removed from the first human

America big on freedom, and people willing to take risks. Though one 'could argue that dangerous choices should not be allowed. What about skydiving? Rock Climbing? People like freedom in America.

Minors not strongest argument, due to how broad debate title and description is. Debate not 'limited to minors I think.

Brings up dangers and other methods.

Social Discord not a strong argument, again due to American ideas of freedom.

lacr3000 R3
If no explanation for missed round occurs, going to count as conduct hit,
Also bad for Con is that have not addressed Pros arguments, giving Pro an advantage.

SpookyTown R3
Exploitive industry while 'bad, not strong argument due to American ideas of freedom.
Look at casinos or phone games that eat credit cards.
Americans and their ideas of freedom.

I'm not sure about history of state-sanctioned experimental medicine, I would need it explained and exampled more.

At a glance 2nd source is better than first,
As 2nd backs up Pro argument of trans regret.
Though if Con had time, they might be able to rebut it.

However, Description of debate says
"2. No new arguments in the final round."
So I will not be awarding sources to anyone.

RFV
Pro wins arguments, by offering arguments of
Bodily autonomy is not absolute,
Dangers,
Government having legislation in medicine.

Sources tie, no new arguments rule.

Legibility, both legible.

Conduct to Pro, as Con did not offer explanation for absence.

I think debate was weighted towards Con, and they might have won, but missing all rounds but the first, gave a large advantage to Pro.

I thought Pro argued well, though their arguments 'could have been addressed by Con. Presumably Pro would have given more depth in argument to address Cons rebuttals.