The Instigator
KaleBevilacqua
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
othercheek
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

Genderqueer people deserve their own bathroom

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
KaleBevilacqua
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,869 times Debate No: 41117
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (27)
Votes (7)

 

KaleBevilacqua

Pro

Currently, genderqueer people are faced with a dilemma: go to either a restroom for women or men, neither category of which they fall into. People in a restroom of a gender they don't belong to are generally unwelcome, which leads to discomfort for everyone involved, the genderqueer folks included.

That is why they need their own bathroom, so they can feel welcomed and safe and so binary-gendered (man or woman) people don't have to have other-gendered folks invading their single-gendered restroom. Please debate me if you don't agree.

Con has the burden of proof.
othercheek

Con

I accept that I have the burden of proof. I am ready to hear your rebuttals, and I would like to thank my opponent for a friendly debate.
Debate Round No. 1
KaleBevilacqua

Pro

Woohoo! An accepter.

As you have the burden of proof, I would like you to elaborate on your case.
othercheek

Con

Genesis 1:27 - "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. "

These so-called "genderqueer" people don't exist. For biological purposes, male and female were created, and calling oneself "genderqueer" is not just a gross violation but a lie. You are either a man or a woman, period.

Not to mention, like all the commenters said, how much it would cost to create an extra bathroom when men's and women's restrooms ALREADY EXIST for men and women who ALREADY EXIST.

I look forward to your rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by michael90000 3 years ago
michael90000
If you plan putting this as a regulation, it would be another financial burden for small businesses.
Posted by amay 3 years ago
amay
I don't understand; what do you mean by 'folks who don't fit in with the binary of man or woman'?

And please open the debate.
Posted by bitterherbs 3 years ago
bitterherbs
I'll debate you on an economic point of view if you let me.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
Hoe, you just keep losing more and more respect the longer you keep this debate posted while not allowing anyone to debate you.
Posted by KaleBevilacqua 3 years ago
KaleBevilacqua
A man who likes men.
A woman who likes women. - Nope. Men and women respectively.

A man who has decided to become a woman.
A woman who has decided to become a man. - Nope. Women and men respectively.

A man who likes both men and women.
A woman who likes both women and men. - Nope. Men and women respectively.

I'm not talking about being gay/bisexual/pansexual or being transgender. I'm talking about folks who don't fit within the binary of man or woman.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Mohawkninja, I think you have a valid point, but it's not well-suited to this resolution. The resolution is that genderqueer people deserve their own bathroom, not that there should be a genderqueer restroom. Deserve is the operative word in that sentence.
Posted by Nerd_in_a_Trenchcoat 3 years ago
Nerd_in_a_Trenchcoat
Why won't you let anyone accept?
Posted by xStarfish 3 years ago
xStarfish
Let's define this group you affectionately and collectively call "genderqueer."

A man who likes men.
A woman who likes women.
A man who has decided to become a woman.
A woman who has decided to become a man.
A man who likes both men and women.
A woman who likes both women and men.
A person who is questioning.
And the list probably continues.

The problem with your idea is that the "genderqueer" variety consists of a lot of genitalia, a lot of sexual preferences, and a generally inappropriate medley of individuals who are suddenly forced to enter a washroom where their identity is reduced to their sexual orientation.

I am not taking a stance on LGBT individuals in this particular debate, but in thinking through your proposition, I believe this would be alienating the minority sexual orientation groups and would not be conducive ti your objective of fairness.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
Pro should have the burden of proof since they are arguing for a change of the status quo.
Posted by amay 3 years ago
amay
KaleBevilacqua; please make it a properly open debate, or at least let me or someone else take you up on it. I hate it when people just make statements, then refuse to be argued with.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by 2Sense 3 years ago
2Sense
KaleBevilacquaothercheekTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't really respond to Pro's main points, but rather utilized vague conjectures of gender based on religion, rather than providing actual facts. Thus, Pro had the more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
KaleBevilacquaothercheekTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has BOP, but failed to fully negate the resolution. Genderqueer people do exist, and so Con's main point is off-base. Saying that making extra bathrooms is too expensive, does not disprove that those people still deserves those bathrooms. People can deserve something without being able to afford it. Thus, I vote Pro.
Vote Placed by zrg4848 3 years ago
zrg4848
KaleBevilacquaothercheekTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro assumed that there is both a need and a demand for this without asserting proof. Pro also would not explain who would be utilizing this restroom. Con pointed out that restrooms are assigned by gender and not by sexual orientation.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
KaleBevilacquaothercheekTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. I think this debate needed to be longer than 2 rounds. Spelling, grammar, and conduct were all about equal. I can hardly consider the Bible a reliable source in this type of debate, so, as PRO did not provide any sources, sources are tied. So because most of CON'S entire argument revolves around the Bible - and falsely claiming that genderqueer people do not exist when we know they do - I have to give the point to PRO.
Vote Placed by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
KaleBevilacquaothercheekTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro assumed that gender queer people had feelings without asserting sources. Even though con used a poor source, it was a source of information nonetheless.
Vote Placed by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
KaleBevilacquaothercheekTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for Pro as Con referenced the bible as evidence for the male/female dichotomy, which was rather laughable as an argument, and completely denied to acknowledge any sort of third sex or gender ambiguity that might exist, such as hermaphrodites/intersex, where reproductive organs and even chromosomal traits aren't definitively male/female. His only argument was a pragmatic one, which was rather weak.
Vote Placed by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
KaleBevilacquaothercheekTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, this was a strange debate... Anyway, con raised the issue of cost and pointed out that sex is determined by genitalia (although I disagree with his statement that it's impossible to be genderqueer), implying that the bathroom of choice should also be determined by such. Con also cited the Bible without establishing it as a legitimate source, which cost him a conduct point.