A Man Can Never Be A True Women.
Debate Rounds (3)
There were no shortage of media folks willing to say how "brave" and how much of a "hero" that Bruce was for dressing up as a women. There was no shortage of media types rushing forth to confirm "her" as a "beautiful women". Why lie this way? Whatever Bruce Jenner may be he is not a women. And he never will be. He may very well be a deeply troubled man, but he is a man. And he always will be. I don"t even believe the media types who affirm his "womanhood" on TV really believe what they say. Instead I think many just say it because it is expected of them and the producer has made a point of telling them to.
Even if Bruce went all the way and had his penis removed, still he would not be a real women. He"d then be a man with his penis cut off and a pair of fake boobs. That"s all any trans sexual can ever be " a facsimile of a female, and often a poor one at that. They can only ever really be a man artificially made to appear somewhat like a women at first glance. But a man they remain.
Makes no odds that the state may have caved in and "recognise it". The state is fickle and open to lobbying. Biology and physiology are not.
Ask 1000 heterosexual men if they would marry a "women" that was really a man with his penis cut off " I assure you that only the tiniest % would consider it. Many would be utterly repulsed by the idea. None of those that would reject it are rejecting it out of some inexplicable "hate". They are rejecting the idea as it is natural to do so, they are rejecting it on the deepest level. If they are repulsed at the idea of marrying such a person it"s because for a heterosexual man it naturally feels repulsive. He doesn"t even need give it much thought " it immediately feels unnatural to him and he straight away feels sick at the idea.
The idea that a man can be a women by simple surgery and pills is also an insult to true womanhood itself. There is far more that defines a true women than surgery and hormone pills and wearing dresses. Being a true women is not something one can learn.
People that are trans tend to be very unstable. Ever met and spoken with any? Not saying they are all "bad" people, but every single trans I"ve known or heard speak is clearly quite unstable, even after they have their op etc. A lot of trans people try to commit suicide or actually do. This doesn"t surprise me given how unstable they appear to be.
We can blame wider society if you want and say everyone else is at fault for "making them feel bad". But doing that would make no sense. It would make more sense to accept that these are deeply troubled people, and that their gender oddness is simply part of that identity and personality issue that they have.
It would also make sense to understand that even when many of them get full surgery, they remain unstable, they remain suicidial, some even wish to change back. This indicates people that convince themselves that "if only they could have their penis cut off they would feel complete". So they do. After the initial euphoria and attention of it all, their old identity and psychological issues resurface.
"The 41 percent suicide rate among transgender people is more than 25 times the rate of the general population, which is 1.6 percent. And among trans people ages 18-44, the suicide attempt rate was 45 percent."
"Young or old, early in transition or years later, changing genders ends in regret, and often, in a total nightmare.
I realize different people will draw different conclusions about the people who make the difficult decision to go back. I just feel you should see the stories of those who regret their transition."
Seven years ago, Matthew, a male drag queen, became Chelsea. Now Chelsea wants to become Matthew again. In the article published Oct. 1, 2014, Chelsea says:
'I have always longed to be a woman, but no amount of surgery can give me an actual female body and I feel like I am living a lie.
'It is exhausting putting on make-up and wearing heels all the time. Even then I don't feel I look like a proper woman.
'I suffered from depression and anxiety as a result of the hormones too.
'I have realised it would be easier to stop fighting the way I look naturally and accept that I was born a man physically.'"
First, I will try to charitably interpret your argument and then refute your points. If you feel that I have misunderstood any of these points, then correct me in your second round and we will start on the corrected point anew. To minimize ambiguity, I will use legal names and legal genders for reference purposes for transgender persons, or any other persons. Quotes are taken from argument Round 1
Paragraph 1: Caitlyn Jenner still has her "manhood." She also has fake boobs. Therefore, Caitlyn Jenner is not a beautiful woman as some have claimed.
Paragraph 2: Claims of Heroism attributed to Caitlyn (formerly Bruce Jenner) are made by media sources. These same sources claim that she is a beautiful woman. This is a lie. Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman. Caitlyn Jenner is a deeply troubled man. Above media sources do not believe what they say. Merely, they say these things because it is expected of them.
Paragraph 3: Removing one"s genitals does not constitute a change in gender. All a transsexual person can amount to is a facsimile (his words not mine: "often a poor one at that"). Female appearance does not denote womanhood.
Paragraph 4: Heterosexual men are unlikely to marry a transsexual woman even after surgery. Heterosexual men are likely repulsed by the idea. This is not due to hate but nature. The idea that transsexuals can be women "is also an insult to true womanhood itself." Female appearance does not denote womanhood.
Paragraph 5: Begins with: "People that are trans tend to be very unstable. Ever met and spoken with any?" My opponent proclaims "every single trans I"ve known or heard speak is clearly quite unstable" It makes no sense to blame this on society. Transsexuals have high rates of suicide and this does not surprise my opponent (read this paragraph carefully, I have had trouble finding a charitable means of phrasing this rant).
Paragraph 6: Suicide rates are stated and an article called "High Suicide Risk, Prejudice Plagues Transgender People" is cited as evidence.
Final: A blog about a regretful transsexual person is quoted.
Suicide rates and your impression of individual mental states will not warrant a further mention seeing that you sited a web article, which blatantly contradicts every point you made on the subject.
In response to your first assertion, which I hope you don"t lean on as evidence supporting your position, beauty is subjective. Your perception of which is not a criterion for womanhood. Nor can the natural/augmented status of the breasts be a viable criterion. Many non transgender women certainly have implanted breasts, natural breasts, or no breasts at all. We all love boobies! However, they certainly don"t denote womanhood.
By "manhood" I presume you mean the penis. While ambiguous genitalia can occur to both males and females, I think Penishood as a criterion generally misses the point. Indeed, throughout your first round argument, I detect and agree with a note of female appearance does not make one a woman. However, I would take this further by pointing out that a female need not be a woman. I believe this to be uncontroversial. For example, a female baby is not called a woman, but rather a baby. A female primary school age child is not called a woman, but rather a girl. Moreover, female is not sufficient condition for womanhood. This begs the question, is it a necessary condition? (I will mercifully skip over the apparent assertion of attractiveness to males denoting womanhood)
Womanhood is not predicated on strict adherence to double X-chromosome bearing physical femaleness. Many woman, identified by themselves and others as such, exhibit a variety of physical and genetic traits. To say these women are not women would be at least going against the heard, and more likely an act of bigoted stubbornness. This goes to show that Woman, is not a statement of genital arrangement, nor of chromosome possession. Rather, Woman, is a statement of identity, both to one"s self and to the community.
I believe the identity criterion is both justified (see above) and most apt to produce a happy society. What right do we have, in a society of liberty, to make a person"s perception of self conform to our perception of his or her outward appearance? On what authority can we claim to know others more scrupulously than they know themselves? In closing, I ask my friends to relax, end the hurtful rants, have an intelligent conversation, and realize that the rights of others need not come at our expense. If a woman was born as a man, I have no right and no reason to tell her otherwise.
" Suicide rates and your impression of individual mental states will not warrant a further mention seeing that you sited a web article, which blatantly contradicts every point you made on the subject."
Okay, that"s fine. It"s somewhat moot anyway, since my only position here is to show that a man can never be a true women. I wasn"t here to prove that suicide rates among trans people are insanely high " which they are. Nor am I here to debate why that might be. Ignoring those suicide rates isn"t going to bring them down though. Parcelling up the blame and putting it upon everyone else won"t do it either. I would suggest coming to terms with what you really are would be the most helpful and healthy thing in the long run. Or as one trans person put it"
'I have always longed to be a woman, but no amount of surgery can give me an actual female body and I feel like I am living a lie.
'It is exhausting putting on make-up and wearing heels all the time. Even then I don't feel I look like a proper woman.
'I suffered from depression and anxiety as a result of the hormones too.
'I have realised it would be easier to stop fighting the way I look naturally and accept that I was born a man physically.'
"In response to your first assertion, which I hope you don"t lean on as evidence supporting your position, beauty is subjective. Your perception of which is not a criterion for womanhood. Nor can the natural/augmented status of the breasts be a viable criterion. Many non transgender women certainly have implanted breasts, natural breasts, or no breasts at all. We all love boobies! However, they certainly don"t denote womanhood."
That is correct. Beauty is subjective. My position here was not to show that beauty is objective. My position here is to show that a man can never be a true women. Physiology and biology are not subjective. Beauty most surely is. Whether one is a man or a women is not subjective. One can objectively identify male and female babies in a maternity ward. How cute a person considered each baby to be would be subjective.
"However, I would take this further by pointing out that a female need not be a woman. I believe this to be uncontroversial. For example, a female baby is not called a woman, but rather a baby. A female primary school age child is not called a woman, but rather a girl.."
That is correct. A female baby would be called a baby girl. A female primary school aged child would be called a girl. At a certain age the girl is then naturally considered a women. A female baby never grows up to be a man. A female school child never grows up to be a man (or vice versa). This can only be done artificially, with make- up, surgery and hormone tablets. At the very best you can deceive the eye, at least for a short time.
"Womanhood is not predicated on strict adherence to double X-chromosome bearing physical femaleness. Many woman, identified by themselves and others as such, exhibit a variety of physical and genetic traits. To say these women are not women would be at least going against the heard, and more likely an act of bigoted stubbornness. This goes to show that Woman, is not a statement of genital arrangement, nor of chromosome possession. Rather, Woman, is a statement of identity, both to one"s self and to the community"."
Being "bigoted" doesn"t come into it and alluding to this isn"t good form in a debate. Your definition of womanhood seems to abandon biology and physiology and come down to "you are whatever you think you are". That"s how it is reading to me. Here"s the bad news " you aren"t.
I am the height I am, I am the race I am, and I am the gender that I am. These are all statements of self- evident fact and not, as you curiously state, born from "bigotry". Of course I am going to be "stubborn" about what is clearly true. If someone wanted to argue that because they felt like they were six foot four but they were a foot shorter, I am obviously not just going to cave in and play along with their delusion. People are free to kid themselves if they wish. General society should not feel obligated or bullied into going along with the pretence.
A man can obviously never be a true women. A women can never be a true man. We do society a massive disservice to pretend otherwise, and it is appalling to legally obligate anyone to buy into this lie that a man can be a women "if they think they are".
One can no more change their gender than they can their race. You do get lots of black women that use skin lightener. Does it make them white? No " just black women with make- up. You do get white people that go as dark as an Indian having been on a sun bed. Does it make them Indian? Of course not, they are just a white person with a tan.
Just where and when does the insanity end? Facebook recently changed their gender criterion. There are now over SEVENTY options.
"UK Facebook users can now choose from one of 71 gender options, including asexual, polygender and two-spirit person, following the feature's successful integration in the US.
Users can choose a different gender option from the previous male and female choices by selecting 'custom' in the gender tab of their profiles.
In addition, people who select a custom gender will now have the ability to choose the pronoun they"d like to be referred to publicly " male (he/his), female (she/her) or neutral (they/their). "
If someone doesn"t see that ^^ as an outright farce then I don"t really know where they would draw the line with anything. What if one started to claim they had "always felt like a cat as a child"? Do we surgically graft a tail onto them and feed them fish?
When you start giving credence to the deluded it becomes one giant race to the bottom. This for example is tantamount to child abuse.
"Children as young as four are receiving lessons from transgender campaigners " including a man who revealed to primary school classes that he is a "trans man" and was "assigned female" at birth.
Thousands of pupils have had the controversial classes, in which they are encouraged to explore their "gender identities" and are questioned on what being a transsexual means, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Up to 20 primary schools a year pay for the classes, given by campaigners" organisation Gendered Intelligence. Parents" groups have reacted with concern that pupils may be "frightened" by the workshops, while experts warned the lessons may confuse young children""."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
This poor child is clearly and most obviously not mentally well. You have to question the parental role in this.
Meet Paddy, the transgender eight-year-old
"Paddy McGuire was born a boy, but from the age of two, began to wear skirts, played with dolls and read books aimed at girls.
Now aged eight, Paddy says she is and always has been, a girl."
Thus far, I believe that I am the only one who has illustrated a viable or consistent criterion for Womanhood. I have shown that bio-female is at least not sufficient to denote womanhood, and indeed not even necessary.
In order to reiterate why typical bio-femaleness is not a necessary condition of Womanhood, I will restate my above argument regarding woman as an identity, applied to persons who are not necessarily biologically female. This distinction can be subtle, as in the case of Intersex persons, or charismatic, as in many transsexual cases. An intersex person (perhaps but not limited to a woman with Turner"s Syndrome), those to whom I alluded in my earlier argument, are uncontroversially identified by whichever gender each is most comfortable with. If Manhood or Womanhood can be awarded to Intersex persons, then why not to transsexual persons as well?
I"m glad we can agree that suicide rates and depression are moot. These statistics certainly do not alter the definition or criterion for Womanhood or Manhood. Along these lines, the anecdote repeated quoted regarding a regretful transgender person does not lend itself to creating a criterion for gender identity. Suicide is a tragic reality for which society cannot be called blameless (once again, please read the article my opponent cited, URL below).
With regard to Facebook gender preference options"
I see that this distresses you and likely many others. This further leads me to believe that we may be speaking across purposes. This diversity of identity possibilities does not describe physical attribute or birth sex. Rather these are statements of identity. By analogy, if I said I were a Caucasian Hindu, this would be atypical, but not a contradiction. Indeed, if we look at Facebook religious identities, we find even greater diversity. While in both the cases of race and religion, bio-sex and gender identity, we find a correlation, in neither cse do we find that these statements are analogous.
There are who statements and there are what statements. A what-am-I statement may involve height, weight, or bio-sex. A who-am-I statement is a question of how one is identified or categorized such as religion, creed, name, title, and gender identity.
In response to the assertion that up to twenty schools a year are inviting transsexuals to speak in school, I would have everyone read the above article at the given URL from "Live Science," which my opponent (not I) cited. The article is illuminating and clearly shows that our society treats transsexual persons less than desirably. SIR, in what way does the exposure of children to another lifestyle constitute child abuse? In what way does proclaiming oneself anything, denote the harm of on looking children? I understand that you have a distain for the sight of transsexuals, you have made this clear, but to assert that their speech in schools is in anyway comparable to wantonly harming or abusing a child is to level a heinous accusation based solely on personal prejudice. I will not hear it.
With regard to pronoun use. I don"t think it is reasonable to expect every person to inherently know which pronoun is appropriate. Quickly, because this bares none to our actual argument. I think it is reasonable to expect people with atypical pronoun preferences to verbally specify if a specific pronoun is preferred.
Finally, I want to point out (because this is a debate) that in every one of your refutations you appealed not to counterpoint but to the controversial premise that is itself the subject of our debate, namely, "a man can never be a true woman."
"I think that for the most part you have read my arguments accurately."
Good. And the entire basis of your argument is that if someone claims they are something - then they are that something. Regardless of biology, physiology, common sense. If they claim it - they are it. Thus for you, a man can indeed be a 'women'. A women can indeed be 'man'. If they think they are - they are. Because, after all, "who are you to tell them otherwise", right? It's not a very rational or logical reaction and where do you draw the line? Do you remain in silence and not talk about the elephant in the room when the next person makes a delusional claim to be something they are not? Do you validate their delusion and whatever you do - never contradict it for 'fear of hurting their feelings'? This seems like a path way to insanity itself. You can simply 'invent your own reality'. Doesn't need to be grounded in hard science or biology - so long as someone believes it.
"Thus far, I believe that I am the only one who has illustrated a viable or consistent criterion for Womanhood. I have shown that bio-female is at least not sufficient to denote womanhood, and indeed not even necessary.."
I think your position is as above - that someone can create their own reality, even if it goes against biological reality.
Not a biological women? No problem in your perception, for one can simply be a 'non bio women'. Whatever that really means. What does it mean? What is a non biological female? Aren't we just back to this being code for a male that has had his penis cut off, some fake boobs grafted on, and spends the rest of their life on a range of risky hormone tablets? Is that what a 'non bio women' is? Do they even need to lose the penis? Can they keep it and still be a 'non bio women'? I guess so - I believe that's the case with Jenner.
This is clearly insanity. There is no such thing as a women or female that isn't biological. All there is as an alternative to that are males that are suffering from a gender delusion and who try to create the facsimile of a female by way of surgery. No matter how much surgery they have or how good they might believe they may look - they remain a man.
"With regard to Facebook gender preference options I see that this distresses you and likely many others. This further leads me to believe that we may be speaking across purposes. This diversity of identity possibilities does not describe physical attribute or birth sex. Rather these are statements of identity. By analogy, if I said I were a Caucasian Hindu, this would be atypical, but not a contradiction. Indeed, if we look at Facebook religious identities, we find even greater diversity. While in both the cases of race and religion, bio-sex and gender identity, we find a correlation, in neither cse do we find that these statements are analogous."
There are many things that truly 'distress' me. This ^^ would not be one. I am not remotely 'distressed' by it, I just consider it a good example of the sheer lunacy that is being pushed as the 'new normal'.
With FB being a social media site used by millions, it serves as an excellent example of this insanity manifesting through the conduit of social media. If FB had done this as an April fool joke it would have been a good parody or joke. The fact that they created it as a real thing makes it even more amusing in some ways.
Maybe history will look back one day with curiosity and reflect on this as being the Age of The Delusional - the period in history in which society went through a phase of outwardly endorsing someone's personal delusion.
Trans sexuals put themselves through all that surgery and risk and for what? They can never be what they are chasing. Deep down inside they know it. They also aren't stupid - they know many of those who will say to their face that they now accept them as a 'women' probably don't. Knowing this means that they will never feel entirely fulfilled, and no amount of people saying otherwise to them will ever remove their own doubts - and it is natural they would always go on doubting their own authenticity - since they are passing themselves off as something they evidently are not and never were.
Why not grow up as a society and realise that the more mature way to deal with people that have delusions such as this is to counsel them to accept what they are, rather than cut bits off and parade them on TV and pretend they are a 'women'? The sky is not going to fall in if you just tell them the truth and advise against surgery based on that truth, advise them toward counseling to accept what they are in ACTUAL reality, not in some reality created by way of a surgeon's knife.
It is almost cruel and unethical for a billion dollar industry to exist that literally exploits those who are suffering from an obvious pathology and mental condition. Even if you wanted to argue that it's the patients 'choice', still it does not seem ethical to me.
Ever heard of Apotemnophilia? It's a pathology in which a person wants (whatever the pathogen may be), to have a healthy limb cut off. This is obviously not normal nor healthy. We would surely not encourage it or promote it, and we would surely consider it unethical for a surgeon to do it.
I don't see a great deal of difference between that condition and those that have a pathology that they are another sex and who go as far as surgery.
"Apotemnophilia is a neurological disorder characterized by the intense and long standing desire for amputation of a specific limb. It can be associated with Body integrity identity disorder (BIID) in which otherwise sane and rational individuals express a strong and specific desire for the amputation of a healthy limb or limbs. Apotemnophilia has features in common with somatoparaphrenia.
Some apotemnophiles seek surgeons to perform an amputation or purposefully injure a limb in order to force emergency medical amputation..."
And what about those that were so very convinced that they were another gender......only to plead to be restored again? Doesn't that demonstrate to you that you're not dealing with a demographic of people that know what is best for them? Did they just "think wrong"?
I'd invite people to listen to this man in his own words. He is probably better qualified to speak than either of us.
"In response to the assertion that up to twenty schools a year are inviting transsexuals to speak in school, I would have everyone read the above article at the given URL from "Live Science," which my opponent (not I) cited. The article is illuminating and clearly shows that our society treats transsexual persons less than desirably.."
Not invited for free. Paid for and by state schools. That's the public purse. Agenda's such as that have no place in state school let alone at a cost. The parents that objected have every right to - it is natural to do so. They want their children to go to school to read and write(and learn hard sciences). There is approx a 20% illiteracy rate for school leavers in the UK. I'd sooner every penny was spent on addressing that to get it to 0% rather than a penny of it be spent to get some man in to speak about getting his penis cut off to little children.
"SIR, in what way does the exposure of children to another lifestyle constitute child abuse? In what way does proclaiming oneself anything, denote the harm of on looking children? I understand that you have a distain for the sight of transsexuals, you have made this clear, but to assert that their speech in schools is in anyway comparable to wantonly harming or abusing a child is to level a heinous accusation based solely on personal prejudice. I will not hear it."
The children that attend school are not there to hear someone relate to them how they like to wear a dress, a wig and how they had their penis cut off. This has no place in any school, no place in any state school, and the school head should be fired for sanctioning that tax payers money and school budget should be spent on this. No one wants a tiny % of the population foisting and pushing their 'lifestyle' onto children at school. Parents do not want it. Only those with an agenda want it. They want to brainwash and confuse very young children so that they can be 'just like them'.
Where would you draw the line? What would you NOT expose children to at school? What would you NOT spend tax payers money on at school? Your measure is that if any parent does not want their child exposed to this at school they are a 'bigot'. Your measure is that if a parent would sooner time and money were invested on literacy rates that they are 'prejudiced'.
In my experience people have to use such labels and tactics when they have run out of any true arguments for their case.
The topic was not 'Your Perception Of My Alleged Disdain'. If it had been then your perceptions of me would be on point. But that's not the topic so it's not on point.
Did you know that the chimp shares 98% of it's DNA with humans, incidentally? In fact you could definitely say that there is more biological and physiological evidence to endorse the man that "claims he's a chimp inside a human body" than there is for a man to claim they are a "women inside a male body".
Trans gender Characters May Win Emmys, But Trans gender People Hurt Themselves
"Asking a surgeon to modify a person"s appearance is simply a socially acceptable means of self-mutilation.
If we examine the medical definition of self-injury, we get a better understanding of why changing genders is a mental health issue. The Mayo Clinic defines self-injury as "an unhealthy way to cope with emotional pain, intense anger and frustration." As someone who has undergone gender change, I know that people who indulge in self-destructive behaviors and suicide ideation have mental issues that beg to be treated and resolved.."
The insanity of hormone blockers for kids
One controversial treatment for children with gender dysphoria is the administration of drugs called hormone blockers to delay puberty. The practice is gaining traction without any scientific proof that it is appropriate or effective, and despite the evidence that it can be harmful:
Most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty
The FDA has not approved hormone blockers for use in trans gender children"not even for experimental use.
A search for one hormone blocker, Lupron, shows that people are reporting serious long-term, debilitating side effects from having used the drug.
Given these facts, why would anyone inject these drugs into children?
Doctors and parents want to help the child cope with the distress he or she is experiencing. Is relief of adolescent distress really worth the risk?
Most will grow out of the dysphoria. Isn't there some way to work through the distress than experimenting on our children?
 J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008 Dec;47(12):1413-23. doi: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e31818956b9., "Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children", Wallien MS, Cohen-Kettenis PT., Department of Medical Psychology, Graduate School of Neurosciences, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
A long-term study of 324 sex-reassigned persons in 2003 in Sweden concluded:
"Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity [diseased state] than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism.........."
SEX CHANGES ARE NOT EFFECTIVE, SAY RESEARCHERS
There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation, according to a medical review conducted exclusively for Guardian Weekend tomorrow.
The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham 's aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.
The Guardian asked Arif to conduct the review after speaking to several people who regret changing gender or believe that the medical care they received failed to prepare them for their new lives. They explain why they are unhappy with their sex change and how they cope with the consequences in the Weekend magazine tomorrow (July 31).
Chris Hyde, the director of Arif, said: "There is a huge uncertainty over whether changing someone's sex is a good or a bad thing. While no doubt great care is taken to ensure that appropriate patients undergo gender reassignment, there's still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatised - often to the point of committing suicide."
Arif, which advises the NHS in the West Midlands about the evidence base of health care treatments, found that most of the medical research on gender reassignment was poorly designed, which skewed the results to suggest that sex change operations are beneficial.
International research suggests that 3-18% of them (transsexuals) come to regret switching gender.
Research from the US and Holland suggests that up to a fifth of patients regret changing sex.
As to your appeals to Mr. Walt Heyer, this is an anecdotal case of a formerly transgender person who has made multiple identity changes in his life. Heyer merely illustrates that physical changes do not suffice to create a female. Eventually, Heyer makes a faith based decision to identify as a man and religiously object transsexuality.
You falsely asses and restate my argument as follows:
"the entire basis of your argument is that if someone claims they are something - then they are that something"
This is a blatant straw man. I will reiterate that there exist two kinds of questions here, the WHO and the WHAT. I DO NOT CLAIM, as you assert of me, that one can change the physical matter of one"s self by claiming to be something. Restated, WE cannot change what we were born as. Indeed, much of the humanistic progress of history has been based in the realization that a person cannot help WHAT THEY ARE. Every reader must be clear on this. I do not claim that one can magically change one"s material substance by preference.
My case is built entirely on the WHO question, the identity question. This is the question to which Womanhood or Manhood can be but two of many, many answers. These identities are not predicated on BIO-sex. If this is still in doubt, see my second argument.
This WHO/WHAT distinction was never once addressed by the Pro. Instead, the assertion was repeatedly made that, "No matter how much surgery they have or how good they might believe they may look - they remain a man." (Pro Argument 3) I feel that we must recall that this assertion is exactly what we are debating and is not a counterpoint. Male/Female is a question of what. Man/Woman, the topic of this debate, is a question of WHO.
Pro has sighted a lot of very illuminating and distressing evidence. ALL of which is meant to prove that transsexuals and transgender people are unhappy, at risk, and marginalized. This is important information. However, this has nothing to do with the criterion by which a person is a woman and certainly levels no attack against my case.
I make no appeal to political correctness. I make no appeal to media, or pop-culture. I will summarize my most crucial point as follows, and leave the supporting arguments to the bulk of my writing above.
1.Man/Woman are statements of gender
2.Gender is a statement of identity.
3.Identity is not reliant on physical characteristics.
Therefore: Man/Woman are not reliant on physical characteristics.
Premise 1 is a mere definition. It certainly has not been contested.
Support for premise 2 can be found in the third to last paragraph in my argument round one and my fifth paragraph of my second argument round.
Support for Premise 3 can be found in the second to last paragraph of my first argument and the third paragraph of my second argument.
My conclusion can be found throughout.
In finality, my opponent has been burdened with showing that Bio-sex is analogous with gender. He has asserted this over and over again but has not supported it. Rather he has shown that transsexual and transgender people face hardships, a point nobody contests. In contrast, I have given a targeted argument to show exactly that a man can truly be a woman. Furthermore, any one of us cannot change what we are, but we are all free and obliged to decide who we are from this point on.
Thank you Pro. Have a good evening.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.