Gender is Not a Spectrum
Debate Round Forfeited
JMurphy has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||5 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||479 times||Debate No:||95385|
Debate Rounds (3)
I personally believe that Gender should neither be a spectrum nor a binary. This stance stems from the fact that gender-fluidity and non-binary gender identification has been a "trend" these days. Before I start, I'd like to point out I hold no hate to gender-ambigious people, and any non-cisgendered person deserves as much respect as a cisgendered one. Still, I believe in the wrongness of the concept, and am going to discuss it from that point of view. I'd also like to point out I am in no way transphobic, but I do discourage wreckless transitioning (more on this later).
We are living in a world that's so advanced that past generations would envy us so hardly. Women are equal to men, non-heterosexuality is slowly being accepted, racism is all but gone, and technology is making literally everything easier. However, I believe we have gone a little too far with questioning gender.
Let's start off by defining gender. Oxford Dictionary defines it as being "The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)" (1) . As pointed out, gender refers to the social differences, not the biological ones. This calls for a distinction between gender and sex. As the World Health Organization (WHO) put it, " "Sex" refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. "Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women." (2)
This is where the problem with the gender spectrum starts. As the definition above suggests, gender refers to the roles ... that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. This very concept emphasises gender roles, or the set of rules that dictate what men or women should do and feel. Gender roles, for example, tell a man it's wrong to wear makeup. They tell a woman it's wrong to play wrestling, and tell a man it's wrong to wear dresses. They tell a young girl it's wrong to play with soldiers, and a young boy it's wrong to play with Barbies. Since we're all in for gender equality, we should thrive to delete gender roles altogether.
Yet, people have this idea in their heads that if someone feels comfortable wearing dresses and putting on makeup and he was born a boy, he should become a transexual woman to be accepted in society. Because, in this society, we accept sex-change more than gender freedom and removing gender norms.
Removing any and all gender roles will almost delete the need for transgendering and/or identifying as non-binary, because a man will be able to do all what women can do, and vice versa. We will no longer need to change our sex/gender in order to be accepted to act a certain way. However, transitioning because someone "feels" like another gender (when actually they want an excuse to act like the opposite gender, where none is necessary) will emphasize that one should be a certain gender to act a certain way, thus emphasizing gender roles (which, in turn, emphasize sexism).
This does not totally delete the need for transexuality and non-binary genders. As mentioned above, I am not against transitioning, but only when the man or woman feel wrong in their own skin. That is, when someone is uncomfortable or insecure about being identified as male or female between himself/herself and his/her friends and relatives. So, if someone feels like they're annoyed by their penis, vagina, or breasts, it's okay to transition, if the opposite sex makes you feel more comfortable. In sum, biological factors are a legit reason for transitioning, but social factors are not. Transitioning due to social factors is what I call wreckless transitioning, which I'm against.
Now that we've covering transitioning, we go back to our main topic: dealing with the gender "spectrum". The reason I discussed transgenderedness is the fact that there are people who transition to in-between genders, or "something along the gender binary" as they refer to it. However, I'm here to indicate that there's no need for such a spectrum. I'll start from gender-ambiguity, or the "third gender". Those, alongside "gender-fluidity", emphasize gender roles, as stated above when I was talking about transitioning. Then comes something that catches my eyes: agenderedness. I find it logical that some people would prefer to have no sexual organs whatsoever, and thus feel more comfortable if they had no gender, biologically speaking (not socially speaking, though. Same rules apply as wreckless transitioning). The need for agenderedness deletes the need for the gender binary, and the lack of need for the rest removes the need for the gender spectrum. This gives birth to a new concept: gender ternary, where there are three genders instead of two, lead by biological factors purely.
To wrap it all up, gender spectrum is as a harmful term as gender binary. It emphasizes gender roles and sexism, and hurts people as much as gender binary. Transgenderedness and transexuality are used interchangably above, and are meant to be used that way, despite the slight difference in meaning. The intended meaning is "changing one's gender". Any change of gender that's due to social norms is wrong and emphasizes gender norms as well. If it's due to psychosomatic factors then it's more than welcomed. Some people feel uncomfortable as males or females, biologically and psychologically speaking. Those people rightly identify as agendered.
(sorry this is my first time just trying to get the hang of debate)
I would like to comment on what the opposition said, that the non-spectral nature of gender gives rise to the bathroom issue. That is irrelevant to the current topic about whether it's right to have gender as a spectrum or not, but it might be used as an arguement.
In fact, the spectral nature of gender automatically refutes the bathroom argument. This is due to the fact that if gender was indeed a spectrum, then any person falls somewhere in it. Let's consider a spectrum ranging from 0 (completely Male) to 100 (completely female). If someone fell on 30 for example, what bathroom does he go to? Not the male bathroom because he isn't 100% male, and not the female bathroom for the exact same reason. What if he falls on 40? 50? Should we make a bathroom for every possible gender identity?
The 2-month (or so) transitioning stage is a point well made. My opinion is that anyone who is neither male nor female at the current time would go to the agendered bathroom.
Back to our main topic, the bathroom issue in no way affirms the need for a gender spectrum.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
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.