The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Having so many labels for genders and sexuality is good.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 483 times Debate No: 92106
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Today, we have many, many labels for different genders and sexualities. We have male and female, people who are both, people who change, people who don't want to be either. And we have multiple names to describe people who are attracted to males, females, neither, or all of the things considered to be genders. We have names for things that differ slightly from straight, like certain things in the greysexual range.
People will passionately defend these labels and say they are real things. A lot of them are "real things" and should be defended. Others are unnecessary, and uncomfortable.
Why do some people feel the need to describe their sexuality or gender perfectly? Many say that it's so they can be a special snowflake for being slightly different, when maybe they aren't different at all. Like, some people may come up with a label for being a male who is slightly feminine, and then claim they are queer for it.
Normally, I would say, what effing ever, you do you. But these people sometimes get so mad if you don't recognize them for what they want to be recognized as, often without even explaining it first. Some claim they have struggles when maybe they don't, really. Like a problem someone may claim to have is people assuming they are male or female, and misgendering them before they get a chance to explain that they are nonbinary. Then they get mad, even if a person had no idea, or any reason to have any idea. It's making the lgbt community look a little ridiculous, when some people of the community face real problems, such as transgendered people being less likely to be hired in some places, and some queer people being in unsafe situations due to their sexuality, or gender. Your problems of being misgendered is also taking attention away from things that actually need attention. Your problem can be solved by simply explaining what you are.
Even if that wasn't the case, the people defending these labels kind of pressure you to label yourself, when sexualities can be so complicated and fluid. If you give yourself a label, you might be pressured to live up to it. It's such a headache, and that's why labels that are a little more general are a good thing. For example, I identify as bisexual, even though sometimes I am more attracted to girls than guys, or vice versa. It's a more general term, and leaves room for that.
Not to mention that sometimes multiple labels mean the same thing, and people won't know what you are talking about. That's okay, I suppose, if people weren't offended by another person's lack of knowledge.
So let's stop having so many weird labels.


Hello everyone, my name is dtien and my opening stance is that having so many labels for gender and sexuality is good.

First of all, I will define the word "good" in a way that makes sense for the debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, "good" means "to be desired of or approved of" and/or "pleasing and welcome" (1). Some synonyms would include "acceptable" and/or "positive" as of (2). (Con, if you disapprove of these definitions and synonyms, please address it in the comments and we can come to a consensus there)

Now to my arguments.

Labels can be liberating.
Many LGBT+ people have to spend much of their lives in the closet, knowing that they may be rejected or even attacked by others for their gender and/or sexuality (3) (4). Even in fairly progressive nations, LGBT+ people are assaulted and even killed at disproportionate rates to the rest of the population (4). Therefore, many queer people are ashamed of who they are, especially those who grow up in religious families (not all religious families are like this of course) (5) (6).
Being able to identify with a label can provide people with a sense of freedom, as many feel they are truly able to express themselves because they have a more developed sense of self.

Labels can give people a sense of community.
Many LGBT+ people feel alone in the world, especially those who live in less progressive communities where non-cis and non-straight people are ostracized. Because of this, many LGBT+ people are in the closet (6) (7) (3). When people group under a label, they have a sense of belonging somewhere. This is similar to the way people born on Leap Day, or "Leaplings," often seek each other out outline or meet in real life (8).

Now, in no way does this suggest you can't be liberated or have a sense of community without giving yourself a label; however, giving yourself a label does help some LGBT+ people do just that, especially if they were having difficulty before.

Liberating yourself and/or giving yourself a sense of community can be pleasing and welcome, and is positive, and can be something to be desired; therefore, giving your gender/sexuality a label can be good.


As for Con's arguments, they center around these key points:
1. Some labels are unnecessary, or uncomfortable.
Just because a label isn't necessary or makes some people uncomfortable doesn't mean it can't help someone feel better about themselves.
2. Some people use labels to be "special snowflakes."
Where does the problem lie, with the labels or with those people?
3. Many people get unreasonably angry at being misgendered or labelled incorrectly, and blast these problems when they should be focusing on more important issues like workplace discrimination.
Where does the problem lie, with the labels or with those people?
4. Many people force labels onto others and pressure them to "live up to it."
Where does the problem lie, with the labels or with those people?

Most of Con's argument is not actually attacking the labels themselves, but the people behind the labels. It is not the labels who get angry at being misgendered/labelled incorrectly, it is not the labels that pressure others, it is not the labels that are special snowflakes - it is some of the people behind them. Con is not proving labels are bad, he is proving that some of the people who use LGBT+ labels are bad.

Con's only point that directly shows that labels are bad is that some labels are unnecessary and make others uncomfortable.

Technically, calling yourself "black" or "white" is unnecessary in many cases - most people can tell that by looking at you (yes some people are not white but pass as white, and vice versa, but I am not talking about them). Should people stop calling themselves black and/or white?
As for labels being uncomfortable to some, some people find other people to be ugly. Should ugly people hide because some people do not enjoy looking at them? To say labels shouldn't be used because they make others uncomfortable is to say ugly people should stay out of sight because they "hurt" the eyes of others.

As for my last point: Con has used no citations. Technically, he cannot prove any of his points are correct without using evidence to back it up. Therefore, all of my refutations of his points are just hypothetical, because claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (Hitchen's Razor).


Debate Round No. 1


BeardBoulevard forfeited this round.


I extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


Of course giving label helps you find community, but, you are more likely to find community when using a more common label than a more specific one. For example, some people consider themselves demi-boy, or demi-girl, which is pretty much just half being non-binary, and half having a gender. This may be a term used to make someone seem unique, when they are more likely to find community being non-binary, or having a gender. (not saying this is always the case).
Let me be clear, I did not say labels were bad, I am saying many of the new, specific ones are unnecessary.
Some "new" sexualities are more like a fetish, or "a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.", such as "objectumsexual", or sexual attraction to inanimate object.
Labels do help express oneself, but you don"t need some new, and uncommon, label to do so, in most cases.

As for your counter arguments, you have a good point with many of my points be more centered around specific people, you are right about that. I do not have counter-arguments to your counter arguments.

PS. I"m sorry that this is half-assed, I am totally still busy from being about to graduate.


dtien400 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by dtien400 2 years ago
Forgot the time limit was 24 hrs. I'm guessing you'll win now. Good job!
Posted by BeardBoulevard 2 years ago
Probably. :)
Posted by dtien400 2 years ago
That's fine. Would you be able to make the final round though? I'd love to finish this debate. :)
Posted by BeardBoulevard 2 years ago
I am not sure that I will be able to reply in the next 8 hours, as I am studying for finals. Sorry.
Posted by BeardBoulevard 2 years ago
Clearly, dank meme is the only REAL gender. All that other crap doesn't exist. :P jk
Posted by ballpit 2 years ago
I sexually Identify as a Dank Meme. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the weed fields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners. People say to me that a person being a dank meme is Impossible and I"m f**king retarded but I don"t care, I"m beautiful. I"m having a plastic surgeon install rotary Swastikas, 69 mm cannons and AMG-420 Dankfire missiles on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me "John Cena" and respect my right to kill from above and kill needlessly. If you can"t accept me you"re a memiphobe and need to check your gay weed privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.

So this is an OK form of Identification. I am happy that you are arguing against the fact that in 20 years we will have 150 genders.
No votes have been placed for this debate.