The Instigator
differentveiw
Con (against)
The Contender
firefury14620
Pro (for)

Should the term LGBT continue to be used?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
differentveiw has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 420 times Debate No: 98565
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

differentveiw

Con

The term LGBT should not be used in reference to the community because it is not inclusive towards the entire community which it claims to contain. This marginalizes these groups and to some level invalidates them. Furthermore, when people do try and include more identities, the term becomes a mockable mess of letters much too long for many people to remember and use. Instead, we should use the term GSRM (Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minorities) which is inclusive towards everyone, including but not limited to, non-binary folk, aromantics, and pansexuals. While doing this, it also keeps the number of letters to a small four, the same as it's less inclusive counterpart.
firefury14620

Pro

The term LGBT includes, in its current state, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders. These are all scientifically proven to be true, and each have a neurological explanation. For example, an epi-gene is a gene that attaches to the DNA in the egg or the sperm but is usually dismantled after the egg is fertilized but, according to William Rice in 2015, "unerased epi-marks might lead to homosexuality" (Balter). While some studies have tried to dismantle the idea of the "gay gene," the evidence always comes back around to that conclusion. This "gay gene" accounts for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. Trangender people are hit with a different explanation, brain structure. The white matter in the brain is arranged and shaped very differently in men and women. When the structure of the white matter in the brain doesn't match the chromosomes, that person is transgender. "Differences in the brain"s white matter that clash with a person"s genetic sex" can cause the person to identify with a gender opposite from their chromosomes and genitals (Hamzelou).
I am aware that I just threw out some science that may not seem relevant, but is actually very relevant. My opponent talks of trying to add more letters to the abbreviation being inconvenient and, ultimately, very confusing. The letters that are added are used to add more identities to the abbreviation. My opponent believes that there should be a change in the abbreviation to accommodate those identities. The abbreviation currently includes all parts of the identities in the queer community that are scientifically proven to exist. The added letters like "Q" for queer and "A" for asexual are representing parts of that community that, factually, do not exist. There is no way for a human to identify outside of the binary unless they're brainwashing themselves, as the white matter in the brain is very clear about the gender identity that the person will uphold and whether they will be comfortable with the body they were born in or not. Identities outside of the two binary genders scientifically don't exist, so why should they be lumped in with the identities that are proven to be true and proven to exist? The same goes for asexuals. People aren't born asexual. Asexuality comes from a traumatic life experience or just choosing not to have sex and needing an excuse, so again, why would we include them with the proven and factual identities? These identities are not recognized in a factual sense, therefore they should not be present in an official term used by even scientists to represent the community.

Works Cited
Balter, M. (2015, October 08). Homosexuality may be caused by chemical modifications to DNA. Retrieved December 30, 2016, from http://www.sciencemag.org...
Hamzelou, J. (2011, January 26). Transsexual differences caught on brain scan. Retrieved December 30, 2016, from https://www.newscientist.com...
Debate Round No. 1
differentveiw

Con

The pro suggests that identities not listed in the term are invalid, a statement to which I blatantly disagree.

My first and foremost issue with my opponent's argument is that there isn't any evidence to prove many of the orientations that using the term GSRM would add. This is, admittedly, to some level true, though not entirely. One thing which is important to take into consideration when discussing marginalized communities of an already marginalized communities is there is very little (if any) out of community information. There is little to no scientific proof or found genetic markers for these small groups of people, but is this because they aren't there, or simply because the research hasn't been done yet?

My opponent mentioned asexuality, saying, "People aren't born asexual. Asexuality comes from a traumatic life experience". Before presenting my information, I would like to ask of my opponent to find a credible article proving this, as I was unable to find one. With that out of the way, I would like to bring forth the 2014 study conducted by Dr. Lori Brotto, and associate professor at the University of British Columbia, concerning genetic markings of asexuality. It was the first of it's kind. While she didn't find a distinct surefire reason why people are asexual, she did have two key findings which can prove that asexuality is to some level genetic, and not a result of trauma. In her study, she tested more than a thousand people, all either asexual, heterosexual, or non-heterosexual (bisexual or homosexual). She found that asexual people were more than two times as likely to be non right handed, something which we do know is genetic, making is a possible genetic marker. Furthermore, she found that asexual people feel no distress about their condition, the way a person who has a psychological condition or trauma that takes away their libido does. So, no, asexuality isn't some made up or trauma caused thing.

Moving on, let's talk about the definition of gender. According to the Oxford Dictionary, gender is the state of being, "either male or female." This is direct and pointed, but if you think about it, it validates three genders and one non-gender. The two obvious, male and female, are covered completely, but so is I might argue, gender-fluidity, as it is the state of being either male or female, just not always the same one. It also encapsulates anyone who is agender, as that is the lack of a gender (so it doesn't need to fall under any gender definition).

I would also like to make a note on your argument that there is no scientific evidence of genders outside of male and female. In 2015, the Medical University of Vienna issued a press release which stated that, "the very personal gender identity of every human being is reflected and verifiable in the cross-links between brain regions". In their study, they placed various people into a type of MRI machine, recording their brain activity. Their findings were quite simple, there is a different level or speed of movement and diffuseness in their brains. A different 2010 study found similar levels of difference between genders. I will not say it's definite, but there is reason to suggest that these findings combined with prior knowledges on sexuality and gender can suggest that there is a realm of gender beyond the binary.

Finally, I would like to present the case for queerness, which happens to go hand in hand with one for multiple other sexualities, like pansexuality, homo and hetero-typicality, etc. These are all subgroups of bisexuality, and as you've already said, bisexuality is scientifically proven. Therefore, these sub identities are also real, they're simply more specific words and identities.

Works Cited
Scutti. "The Asexual Perspective: What It's Like To Prefer Intimacy With No One." Medical Daily. IBT Media Inc., 07 May 2015. Web. 30 Dec. 2016.

Ravishly. "Neuroscience Proves What We've Known All Along: Gender Exists on a Spectrum." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 20 Jan. 2015. Web. 01 Jan. 2017.
firefury14620

Pro

My opponent starts out her first argument by mentioning "marginalized communities." This may be a personal problem, or just holding on too tightly to the dictionary, but LGBT folk are not marginalized. They are given a large amount of attention and, with the introduction of overly PC culture, they are accepted almost more than heterosexuals, who aren't allowed to be proud of their sexuality. Please do not start a debate on that definition, I was merely pointing out a problem with the use of the word and, as this is a factual debate, using words correctly is important.

Now that we have that out of the way, I would like to address my opponents claim that there isn't enough research on the topic. With the build-up of PC culture at universities, many research departments at high-end universities are focusing on the problems of the LGBT community. These studies are usually thrown out and ignored because nothing is proven or found out that would benefit the narrative of the people commissioning or performing the research. That was just done at a university near me, and some of the professor's students were horrified and walked out of the classroom. It isn't that the research isn't being done, the research results just don't support my opponent's narrative.

Responding to my opponent's argument about asexuality, I would first like to point out that I take the study by Dr. Lori Brotto with a grain of salt. Trying to connect left-handedness and asexuality is a stretch to say the least. Also, I was not able to find any other sources that back up the things that Dr. Brotto claims. After such a large discovery, I would think that other scientists and researchers would jump on board to be a part of the discovery. Asexuality has been proven to be caused by HSDD (Hypoactive sexual desire disorder). HSDD causes the sufferer to have a diminished or absent sex drive, and is usually associated with women. Very few biological males suffer from HSDD, as the male sex drive is more one track, while the female sex drive is less firm and direct. It can be caused by trauma, but doesn't necessarily include trauma as one of the symptoms. Asexuals don't constantly show signs of distress at the mention of sex or sexuality, which is what I assume my opponent meant, that part was a bit confusing the way it was written. Feel free to clarify in the next argument.

The argument about non-binary genders that my opponent makes is very skewed the way it is presented. Yes there are cross links in the brain, but not with gender identity. There are cross links between many different things in the brain. According to a study called GlycoSENS about cross links in the brain, "occasionally, blood sugar (and other molecules in the fluids in which these tissues are bathed) will react with these proteins, creating chemical bonds called crosslinks." The study continues to explain that these cross links can be quickly broken or lasting. Usually these cross links are between parts of the brain that control sugar regulation and can make the body think it has more or less energy than it actually has. There is no evidence outside of the Huffington Post article my opponent cited that proves that the cross links can cause differences in gender identity. Also, if what my opponent says is true, then why doesn't everyone have a different gender? Why does 99% of the world identify on the binary?

With the citation of the dictionary definition of gender, my opponent manipulated the simple definition of being "either male or female." The interpretation that was intended of this was that gender includes male or female, but my opponent manipulated it beyond recognition. The original meaning is very straightforward and does not include choosing to be one or the other on any specific day. Also, saying that agender isn't a gender is obvious (excuse my language) bullcrap. Agender is identified as one of the new genders being added into the liberal agenda. Merely stating that, since it means the person has no gender, it doesn't have to fall under any definition of gender is outside any realm of interpretation that I could've pulled out of that very simple definition. Once an argument has to debate not the meaning of a word, but reach deep into the definition to pull out new definitions that still kind of fall under the same definition but not really, it is clear that the argument is becoming more about quantity of arguments than quality of arguments.

I am on your very last argument and I apologize but the amount of buzz-words used in this argument is becoming ridiculous. I didn't mention pansexuality because, without non-binary genders and if transgender people are accepted as the gender they identify as, pansexuality isn't a concept. I'm honestly not sure what homo and hetero-typicality have to do with being subgroups of bisexuality, so feel free to explain that to me.

As I've written this argument I have become more and more annoyed as I counted the buzzwords so I apologize if my last couple points seem a bit heated.

Works Cited
GlycoSENS: Breaking extracellular crosslinks. (2016). Retrieved January 01, 2017, from http://www.sens.org...
International Society for Sexual Medicine. (n.d.). Retrieved January 01, 2017, from http://www.issm.info...
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by firefury14620 1 year ago
firefury14620
I would hope so. I finished my arguments
Posted by Dirty-Morgs 1 year ago
Dirty-Morgs
firefury won
Posted by firefury14620 1 year ago
firefury14620
And it has been decided. She forfeited.
Posted by firefury14620 1 year ago
firefury14620
I'm a bit annoyed that my opponent seems to have neglected to post her reply with only 1.5 hours left.
Posted by firefury14620 1 year ago
firefury14620
Honestly, I am a little triggered, but I prefer to call it intellectually annoyed. It's just annoying to me how far the echo chamber has pushed these ideas into the heads of easily influenced young people. I'm young. I'm 16. I know how easy it is to influence someone my age. It annoys me how people have taken advantage of that vulnerability and used it to add another minion to their army. It annoys me because I know some very smart people who have been brainwashed by these ideas. It annoys me because it's too easy to get sucked into the echo chamber. So yes, I'm a bit triggered, but I'm honestly just angry and annoyed. We're young, easily manipulated. I hate it when people use that to benefit their own agenda. Let the kid decide for themselves instead of pushing the agenda down their throats. I'm not angry enough to break something, but it does anger me to the point of writing my argument the way I did. There is honestly no excuse that the leaders of the echo chamber can make that justifies this. The fact that this topic is even up for debate says so much about the direction young Americans have started following. I'm stuck with these people. When I'm 30-40, we're the holders of not only our own ideology, but the power we have over the younger generation as well. I don't want to live in an America where this is a problem. So yes, I'm triggered. Laugh all you want, but I have good reason to be angry and annoyed by the content of my opponent's argument.
Posted by Dirty-Morgs 1 year ago
Dirty-Morgs
Look at the sources and you can already tell who won this. and as perussi said

"This is political correctness gone too far. Trying to come up with something politically correct to replace an already politically correct term."

also Firefury14620 is triggerd
Posted by Dirty-Morgs 1 year ago
Dirty-Morgs
Look at the sources and you can already tell who won this. and as perussi said

"This is political correctness gone too far. Trying to come up with something politically correct to replace an already politically correct term."

also Firefury14620 is triggerd
Posted by firefury14620 1 year ago
firefury14620
I'm apologizing right now, but I'm honestly becoming a little annoyed and angry with the buzzwords my opponent is using. Marginalized communities" Hetero-typicality? Really? This is the echo chamber going too far. They hear a word that sounds official and decide to repeat it until someone pets them and tells them they're so smart. It's honestly just angering and almost humoring me.
Posted by jo154676 1 year ago
jo154676
The official pc term now is LGBTQIA+ which is absurd and I don't really know what some of them are supposed to mean but yea.
Posted by Perussi 1 year ago
Perussi
This is political correctness gone too far. Trying to come up with something politically correct to replace an already politically correct term.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.