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

Males legislating on female only issues - Should it be allowed?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 828 times Debate No: 46358
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)




It is my contention, that men should not be involved in any way, in the formation of legislation relating to female only issues, for example, abortion, childbirth, sexism etc.

Quite simply, how can any person claim to have an opinion on a subject which they do not know anything about and (perhaps unfortunately) cannot know anything about.

Even male medical doctors, who are well trained in certain areas regarding specifically female issues, understand only the 'technical' side of the issue, and not the issue itself.

To suggest that any man should be involved in legislation of female issues, especially when such legislation impedes the human rights of women, is as ridiculous as saying that a white person knows better than a black person about racism, and is qualified to tell a black person about racism.

I have personally observed on many occasions when debating with various people on this and similar subjects, that in fact most disagreements on this topic simply stem from this type of fundamental misunderstanding of the issues at hand.

There are certain issues which people require experience of (or at least a fundamental understanding) in order to take part in any sort of reasonable conversation on the issue.

To quote just some examples of the profound misunderstanding of certain males on such issues, which I believe are actually worrying when considering that people in the same 'excluded' group (males) may be involved in legislation and other decisions affecting the lives of others (and possibly causing them great suffering) here are some examples which I personally have heard:

"Being kicked or otherwise struck in the testicles hurts more than childbirth".
(Clearly ridiculous and based on the fact that generally this pain is the worse than men can imagine or expect in life, thereby negating the profound connotations of childbirth for women.)

"Women are just selfish if they have an abortion".
(Again, clearly untrue and ridiculous and entirely negates once more all of the profound suffering and connotations of this issue in the life of a female.)

"Sexism doesn't exist any more".
(An outright denial of this very important issue, the resolving of which is very important as sexism causes massive suffering in many millions of people's lives on a daily basis.)

I believe that just these few examples show that there are certain areas in which there exists a natural and unchangeable fundamental misunderstanding of the difference of the experience of life between males and females, and that as such, there are certain issues on which people not in the 'affected' group should not be involved, certainly not in any official capacity.

In conclusion:

I believe that in order for any fair and realistic laws to be agreed on in relation to such issues, these laws should be arrived at by agreement of females only.


Thank you, Sir, for starting this interesting if polemical debate on a very modern and disputed topic. I look forward to a fun, informative, and enlightening debate.

Firstly, without animosity nor condascension, I feel no argumentative need to rebut my opponent. Quoting or paraphrasing silly or unreasonable statements regarding women does not make an overall case for morality nor objectivity.

What is a "female only issue"?

What immediately struck me as somewhat puerile was my adversary's definitions and examples of what they clearly consider to be a women's issue. Their testimony invokes abortion,childbirth, and sexism. Now I think you will concur that sexism is a terrible example of this, as it displays a rather blithe ignorance of the fact that sexism can indeed work both ways. The reason the feminist history is so ghastly is that only one sex had the final word and decision on gender policy.

Meanwhile, for issues like abortion and birth control and such questions of ethic and morality, it seems that the party who benefits should not be allowed the last word or decision; that is to say, it should be shared equitably with all involved. Humans all share an innate sense of morality, and simply because a certain topic affects a certain group, does not bar all other sects from making a rational decision. For example, many imams decree that their congregations, in the pursuit of pleasing Allah, should strap themselves to a bomb and cause mass casualties upon detonation. Simply because I am not a Muslim, and I do not know how it feels to be divinely ordered to kill innocent people, doe not make me unqualified to form a moral judgement or opinion. Similarly, being a man does not invalidate the morals and rationality I share with my female cohorts.

My opponent offered a counter-example in the comment section, namely whether it would be acceptable to allow aliens to rule on human affairs. My response is this: men and women share the same capacity for reason, and the same diversity of morality, and so are on equal terms ethically. If an alien race similarly possessed these traits, then I would gladly have them share in my decisions. And I would hear them out, and discuss human issues with them. Essentially, as long as a species shares a common humanity, or a common existence in the case of the aliens, then they are on equal footing to decide objective moral issues.

It is for this reason that I would put to my opponent the proposition that men have an ever greater right to judge these moral issues. Objectivity means fairness and the sole employment of reason. The fact that men neither benefit nor suffer from actions and items like abortion and birth control means that they get a far more unbiased look at those issues. (I say this being both pro-choice and pro-birth control, by the way).

Had I more characters, these points could be expanded on or specified, but they must idle for future rounds. Best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


The opponent asks - "What is a female only issue?" To this I would answer that it is quite obviously, any issue which can only be understood by a female, as it is an issue which it would be impossible for a male to experience. Unfortunately, with certain issues of importance, some experience really is required in order to fully understand the subject at hand, and surely SHOULD be required in the case of any person who has the capacity to legislate on said issue?

He goes on to state that "sexism works both ways". This I believe is also an error in understanding on the part of my opponent in this debate.
Although, of course, discrimination can go both ways, and any person can discriminate against any other person in one way or another, sexism is more than simply individual cases of discrimination. Sexism is an institutionalised, societal problem. In other words, the way that society currently thinks and operates as a whole, allows for sexism to be perpetuated. There is no such system in place which allows for sexism against men, only women.
Due to this "male privilege" as it is commonly known, again the understanding of men regarding women's issues is somewhat skewed. With the best intentions in mind, most men still could not understand the true nature of the problems. An exception to this may be a man who has had experience of racism towards him. Even so, while this would lend the man some insight, it can not be considered 'the same thing' or adequate to inform him of the problems that women face in society.

Although this is not supposed to be a debate about sexism, or the morality of abortion etc, my opponent has chosen to take that route in order to make his case.

I can address this point with an example of just one line from my opponents last argument, in which he states:

"the party who benefits should not be allowed the last word or decision".

Suffice to say I am horrified, that any person could believe that a woman in any way could 'benefit' from an abortion. This is a truly sick thing to say, and I find this comment genuinely disturbing. There is surely no more horrific experience on this earth which anyone could have to undergo than an abortion, and the fact that my opponent seems to think that women 'benefit' from this, I believe is a perfect example for my case, as it demonstrates perfectly the profound misunderstanding which men have regarding women's issues.

He goes on to say that men neither benefit nor suffer from these issues, but I would disagree with this. Many men do both benefit and suffer. The level of their suffering though would be on a purely psychological platform, and would not involve the physical suffering and medical risks which women face.

Nevertheless, the effects that women's issues DO have on men, have been proven to make them biased and self serving. For said evidence merely look at existing legislature.

I maintain that women's issues should be decided only be females.


I respectfully thank my opponent for her argument.

On the topic of what stands as a "women's issue", my opponent repeatedly claims that abortion, birth control, and sexism are something a man cannot, by definition, understand, yet there has been no explanation for why abortion cannot be understood by a man. Because males don't get pregnant? So are women who have never been pregnant nor had an abortion barred from speaking on the issue?

I, for one, know the moral aspect of terminating a pregnancy, the women's rights aspect, the health aspect, and men reading this should be mildly insulted that my opponent seems utterly convinced that males cannot understand these basic points. Some conclude that the moral wrongs out way the rights issue, and others like me believe the opposite, but we fully understand the issue.

Additionally, while not experiencing the emotional weight that often comes with issues like abortion, my view on this issue is shaped by women telling me of their experiences, and my sympathy toward their desire for autonomy over their bodies.

Now, as it was a insult, albeit a civil one, I should address my opponent's outrage at my calling abortion a benefit. My opponent calls me down on this, saying abortion is one of the most "horrific experiences on this earth".

Assuming statistically that my opponent has not undergone an abortive procedure, then how does she know this? Has she spoken to women who have had this operation? Well I have as well, and yet my opponent claims more right to speak on the issue than I do?

Now, on what I actually said, let's objectively judge whether abortion is a "benefit". A women rids herself of the responsibility and pain a child brings. (I find abortion acceptable, I am not insinuating selfishness). This woman will not have to suffer through childbirth, will not experience the financial nor emotion strain that comes with a child. Abortion is no doubt an incredibly emotionally painful thing to go through, but if a woman found that the evil outweighed the advantages, then obviously she would not have the operation, so it therefore in some way must benefit her.

My opponent says my statement "demonstrates perfectly the profound misunderstanding which men have regarding women's issues." Well, this demonstrates what I mean about objectivity and reason, eliminating emotion. Logically and through careful observation, abortion holds beneficial in most if not all cases. I stand by my statement.

The last point I must briefly respond to is sexism. There are few characters unused, so this will remain simple. I do not consider myself a feminist. I am a humanist, which means in short that I hold the rights of all unalterable and unresolvable. Problems cannot be solved by dividing, by excruciating difference and hurling insult, such as accusing men of an incapability of believing in the rights of women, but instead by coming together.

Once again, I thank my adversary, and await her next argument.
Debate Round No. 2


I will leave my case here, by stating simply that every response my opponent has given so far, has absolutely proved my original point. More evidence of this can be seen in the comments section of this debate, where various males have demonstrated their level of misunderstanding of these issues.

I really do not believe there is anything else that can be said on this matter, to convince my opponent, as per my original argument in this case, the level of misunderstanding is obviously too great (through no fault of the opponent or other males), for my case to ever be properly understood.

Perhaps this is a worrying sign that policies on women will continue to be decided on by men, as the men in question will never accept that they have a fundamental inability to fully understand the issues involved.


I count by rebuttals as unanswered. Shall I take that as a concession?

I would draw your attention, readers. Here it is again: your a man, so you don't understand women's issues. And yet there lies no explanation for why that is. Why is my reasoning on abortion incorrect? What disqualifies me from speaking on the issue? Because I have never been pregnant? Assuming my opponent hasn't been either, what makes her qualified to conduct discourse and not I?

You will be receiving no answer, audience, because no good one exists. Men and women share the same humanity and the same morals, and so are equally qualified to pass judgement on a moral issue, especially from an objective standpoint.

Despite my opponent likely describing me as sexist, I find her far more biased towards her gender then any men I have personally met. Because I am a male, I am incapable of fighting injustice against women, or respecting the opposite gender's rights and privileges, and my view on moral issues are clouded by my natural hate of women and my desire to subjugate the entire sex.

Whereas at the beginning of the debate I found my opponent's resolution errant, I now find it disgusting, condescending, and hateful.

As no response to my points was received, I extend them through this round. Best of luck to my opponent in the voting, and I thank her for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
Simply stating the facts as they are.

You had ample opportunity in the debate to prove that said stance was incorrect, and failed to do so, instead preferring to make personal attacks and pointless defensive comments, as well as "putting words in my mouth" that I never said, and proceeding to reply to those fictional arguments.

Disappointing, as I was hoping for a real debate on this issue, which could be enlightening to both sides, and voters.
Posted by Ameliamk1 2 years ago
Your very argument was that men lack a natural understanding of "womens issues" including sexism and abortion, and so are not allowed to comment. The implications are unmistakable, madame, and quite detestable.
Posted by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
In his closing argument, Ameliamk1 said:

"I have personally met. Because I am a male, I am incapable of fighting injustice against women, or respecting the opposite gender's rights and privileges, and my view on moral issues are clouded by my natural hate of women and my desire to subjugate the entire sex."

1) I did not say or even imply any of that.
2) Everyone should fight injustice wherever they find it.
3)I did not say or even assume that you had a "hate of women".

All of your quote above simply shows much presumption and reaction on your part.

Once again, this just shows why the issue raised in my debate will never be resolved... the issue can't even be mentioned, even in a fair debating context, without a male becoming reactionary angry and aggressive about it!

There really was no need to be defensive, as you were never attacked in any way.

Thanks anyway
Posted by Ameliamk1 2 years ago
Sir, if I may respond in place of my opponent, this debate is not discussing the morality of abortion and such topics, but instead on the allowance of men to dictate and help decide this morality. So please, in general, post your opinion on the issues themselves to debates dealing with those issues.
Posted by saxman 2 years ago
Since there are people obsessed with the topic of abortion, this is my reasoning. technically, an unborn baby is half the mom and half the dad. it merely is inside the mother. And how do we know that say a woman will give birth to a boy. I am not anti women's rights. i am pro fetus rights.
Posted by Topkek 2 years ago
That's fine, The_Gatherer, you don't have to reply to my comments. Next time, however, if you are going to ignore someone in opposition of your beliefs, don't use an explanation like "I won't talk to you anymore because you don't believe what I believe!". That just makes you look really, really bad on the interwebs.

And I'm not going to bother trying to convince you I am not anti-feminist, or sexist, because I doubt you'd believe me anyway. But if you cannot retort someone's arguments properly without resorting to logical fallacies, or simply giving up because of personal issues with the opposition, then you'll never learn anything.
Posted by Topkek 2 years ago
"Topkek, this is not a debate about "women's rights" or the morality of abortion."

That's funny, because you make plenty of mention of these topics in both your argument and in the comments here. Can you blame me for following the trail you made yourself?

"As for straw man arguments, I have stuck entirely to the original topic at hand. It is ironic that you should accuse me of using straw men, as that is in fact what you appear to be doing."

I am specifically referring to these following quotations from your original argument:

""Being kicked or otherwise struck in the testicles hurts more than childbirth"."
""Women are just selfish if they have an abortion"."
""Sexism doesn't exist any more"."

Not all men say this. In addition, this is very low hanging fruit.

As well,

"this is not a debate about abortion, however since you seem fixed on that issue, again I would point out that it is a subject on which men can not have any real input, as men do not and can not understand it as an issue."

Again I will reiterate, it doesn't matter if they don't understand the issue itself. It affects them, they are citizens in this country, they have a vote in the matter equal to anyone else.
Posted by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
Topkek, your use of popular anti feminist arguments indicates to me that you are in fact sexist yourself, and so I will not be answering any more of your comments.
Posted by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
Taylor yes of course I am aware of that and it is disgusting in this day and age that anyone could think being gay somehow deserves the death penalty. However in the context of this discussion I was referring only to Western society.

As to the empathy issue, of course most men other than those with a mental imbalance can empathise. However with certain issues more than just empathy is required, but understanding also. I mean understanding in the sense of actually "knowing" about the subject.

This is certainly one case in which it would be almost impossible for a man to really put himself in the woman's shoes, so to speak.
Posted by Topkek 2 years ago
"To answer this question: In the context of my argument here, women understand it because they are actually living it and have lived it. Men do not and can not as they haven't and never will."

Men haven't been victims of sexism? Really now? You don't consider male-only military conscription sexist against men? Or the incredibly pro-mother and pro-wife laws regarding custody, alimony, abortion, adoption etc. sexist against fathers and husbands?

Even if we live in this other dimension of yours where men have not been victims of sexism, then another question is raised: can women rationally make a decision on a subject that has hurt them, and can they make this decisions without irrational emotionalism getting in the way? Here's a good analogy: should the victims of, let's say for example, an assault crime, decide the sentence of their alleged assaulter? Can you see how this could be a very, very bad way of sentencing criminals?

"But let's turn that round. Say a majority of men in the world agreed that the penalty for kicking a man in the balls should be 10 years in jail. Well, who are women to disagree with that?"

Why wouldn't they? Are there not women who hit men below the belt? What if a woman kicks a man in the family jewels in self-defence, but can't prove this defense claim in court, and thus gets sent to prison for 10 years based on a decision made by only men? This sort of law affects them, so they have every right to opposite the law should they so choose to.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TN05 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins arguments due to Con not actually countering them - con effectively gave up in round 3.