The Instigator
NKaloms
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Overhead
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

If Gender is subjective, then it has no practical usage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 9/24/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 567 times Debate No: 104123
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

NKaloms

Pro

A contentious issue today is gender identification. Many individuals no longer believe that gender is binary and is instead on a spectrum. If this is so, and gender is subjective to this or that person, then I propose that gender no longer has any practical usage and we should get rid of "gender" altogether and instead use only our biological sex to identify our human species, male and female.

My opponent's goal in this debate is to prove that if gender is subjective, it still has practical usage. My goal in this debate will be to prove that if gender is subjective, then there is no practical usage and that we should return to the term "sex" to identify our human species.

Terms:

Sex - the fundamental distinction, found in most species of animals and plants, based on the type of gametes produced by the individual and its chromosomes.

Gender - Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

Practical - the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas

Round 1 is for acceptance. 2 is for arguments. 3 and 4 are for rebuttals.
Overhead

Con

I accept. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
NKaloms

Pro

My argument is as follows:

1) [If] gender is subjective,
2) then it cannot be applied practically,
3) and therefore should be discarded for biological sex.

Assuming that gender is subjective to each individual's identification, it has no practical value. Why should anyone care if someone identifies as a male or female or bigender or agender or whatever? If I cannot apply this practically then there is no purpose for it.

Take for example a medical appointment/examination. If I am to fill out a form asking my gender in order to know what genitals I have or what major hormones are in me ((Mainly testosterone for males, estrogen for females) (DifferenceBetween.com)). This is why gender fluidity is impractical in regards to the medical field. If there is a form that has to ask me what my gender is and then also asks me what genitals I have, why put gender in there anyway? It's just more confusing data that means nothing in regards to my health and well-being.

Another example is in Law. If humans are equal under the law, what difference does it make if I am male, female, or other. If I am a human, I have human rights. There is no practical usage for gender in this field.

A problem that would arise due to gender being subjective would be in athletic pursuits. If a 180 - 250 lbs. male identifies as a female and wants to compete in a sport in a female league, this presents a problem. This male will be generally be better in this sport and could possibly threaten the wellbeing of the females playing. This example could be presented vice versa and the one female would be in danger.

In conclusion, assuming that gender is subjective and is not synonymous with sex, there is no practical usage for it in any substantial field of work and therefore is a useless identification for humans and should be disregarded for an objective standard of human identification that is, biological sex.

Sources:

"Difference Between Testosterone and Estrogen." DifferenceBetween.Com. January 25, 2014. < http://www.differencebetween.com... >

Any medical textbook that includes human male and female hormones
Overhead

Con

Some people confuse subjective with important, when it is anything but. Our very conceptions of right and wrong that guide our entire lives are entirely subjective. Subjective issues aren't just theoretical bus deciede much of what we do and how the world works.

I feel this is a very easy debate for me to win because PRO has already effectively conceded.

As PRO has laid out, the topic is "If Gender is subjective, then it has no practical usage" and the argument relies on three stages:

1) [If] gender is subjective,
2) then it cannot be applied practically,
3) and therefore should be discarded for biological sex.

Furthermore practical is defined (again by PRO) as "Practical - the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas".

So the main point to takeaway from all this is that we are looking to see if gender being subjective results in some real world difference. Does it matter beyond ideology and theory? We don't care about whether gender being subjective is good or bad or you like or dislike it or are for are against it. All of that is irrelevent. To win my side of the debate I merely need to show that there is one practical difference if gender is subjective.

This is of course immensely easy because PRO has already done it for me.

"A problem that would arise due to gender being subjective would be in athletic pursuits. If a 180 - 250 lbs. male identifies as a female and wants to compete in a sport in a female league, this presents a problem. This male will be generally be better in this sport and could possibly threaten the wellbeing of the females playing. This example could be presented vice versa and the one female would be in danger."

Pro cites a practical application for gender being subjective. It isn't an application he agrees with, as he makes clear, but that's irrelevent because the topic is not about do you think it's a good idea or a positive idea or has good side-effects or bad side-effects. It is merely whether there is any practical usage.

Pro has admitted there is such a difference, splitting atheletes in a different fashion to how we do currently, so he has conceded the argument.
Debate Round No. 2
NKaloms

Pro

I'm afraid that my opponent has misrepresented my argument.

Con claims that I have conceded the argument because there is a practical usage for gender(when it is subjective). I have not done anything of the sort. Using gender in the example of sports, I was trying to show that gender being used subjectively is impractical because of sex being objective. If gender is subjective, it cannot be applied practically, because practical matters deal with objective reality. Using that example I was showing that gender has no practical usage because if someone identifies as female and is objectively a male, that causes problems. Gender being subjective is not practical - it is impractical. It is impractical because it causes objective problems.

The definition of impractical is - (of an object or course of action) not adapted for use or action; not sensible or realistic.

There is no sense in using gender because if gender is subjective then it has no usage concerning objective matters. It is not practical (the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas). Gender being subjective becomes a theory, an idea. My opponent has made the mistake that if gender is applied in an objective scenario it therefore becomes practical. This is not the case. If gender is subjective, it has to do with theories and ideas, not with practical application of those subjective theories and ideas.
Overhead

Con

Pro, realising that his has shot himself in the foot, is now trying to change the definitions that were given in Round 1.

There are two notable and different definitions and usages of the word practical.





    1. 1.

      of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas.

      "there are two obvious practical applications of the research"


      synonyms: empirical, hands-on, pragmatic, real, actual, active, applied, experiential, experimental, non-theoretical, in the field; More






    1. 2.



      (of an idea, plan, or method) likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible.

      "neither of these strategies are practical for smaller businesses"


      synonyms: feasible, practicable, realistic, viable, workable, possible, within the bounds/realms of possibility, reasonable, sensible, useful, helpful, constructive


In Round 1, the very start of this debate, Pro made abolutely clear that he was talking about definition 1. He literally spelt it out. By definition 1 he has conceded his argument.

How he suddenly wants to change this and redefine one of the key words midway through the debate. That is unacceptable behaviour in a debate and should not be tolerated.

Pro's argument has failed and the only defence he can muster is trying to alter definitions that he has already provided in R1 as the basis of this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
NKaloms

Pro

Once again my opponent has misconstrued my position. I did not change the definition of practical. I added a new definition, that of impractical. My opponent has committed a straw-man fallacy by saying that I am attempting to redefine my definition of practical. He claims I have conceded my position, and once again, I have not.

Because of this I urge everyone to vote for Pro.
Overhead

Con

Pro is not only unashamedly trying to change the terms of the debate halfway through and redefine the key words he himself gave in R1, but thinks this isn't patently obvious or logically fallacious.

"Impractical" is not mentioned in the nature of this debate. Only "pracitcal" is. There are only two outcomes based on the point of view of how to interpret this, both of which result in a clear Con victory.

Option A) "Practicality" and "Impracticality" are defined by each other such as with the relationship between "flammable" and "non-flammable"

If practicality and impracticality are defined by each other and mutual opposites, impracticality must be the opposite of the definition of "practicality" given in R1. Attempting to change the definition in R3 is just an attempt to change the definition of practicality halfway through the debate with an extra step of using the reverse of the word to change the original version by proxy. This is done simply because Pro shot himself in the foot and lost his argument when using the originally agreed terms and definitions, and rather than conceding he would rather engage in poor conduct.

In this case the change of definition cannot be accepted, he has already provided an example of how my argument is right based on the original definition accepted by both parties in R1 and voting Con is the only concievable option.

Option B) "Practicality" and "Impracticality" are not defined by each other, such as the raltionship between heard (sensing sound with your ears) and unheard (Never having known something to have occured; e.g. "it was unheard of")

If impracticality is it's own word with a definition unconnected to practicality, it is simply irrelevent. Neither the topic of the debate nor R1 mention impracticality, only practicality. If impracticality isn't an attempt to redefine "practicality" and is it's own seperate word whose definition isn't connected, why should we care when it doesn't enter into the debate.

To sum up, there is no case where Pro's argument makes sense. He is either trying to change the agreed upon definitions or his argument is irrelevent as it doesn't relate to the definitions given in R1. I can see no basis for someone supporting Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.