The Instigator
funnycn
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
wampe
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The first pregnant man was not a man, thus he is not the first pregnant man II

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 1 vote the winner is...
funnycn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 585 times Debate No: 64420
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

funnycn

Pro

The first time I debated this, my opponent forfeit. I remade it.

I hold the position that the first pregnant "man" was NOT a man at birth, thus he/she should NOT be considered the first pregnant man.


Con, or you, hold the position that he is technically a man, thus should be considered the first pregnant man.


Rules.

First round is acceptance. Break this rule and you forfeit all points to pro.

The first pregnant man is Thomas Beatie. Claims otherwise make that part of your argument false.

BoP is shared.

The bible is a limited source. If you use the bible, use another source to back it up. If you break this rule, your claim in the argument is false.

Forfeit any round, and you forfeit all points to pro.

I accept this challenge, and will debate anyone.
wampe

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
funnycn

Pro

==Argument==
i. Thomas has female reproductive organs and his/she sex is female, thus he/she is not a man.

The definition of "sex" is

"Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs."
[http://www.med.monash.edu.au......]

Thomas beatie, born a female, has female chromosomes, and obviously internal sex organs, otherwise, she/he could not give birth to a child. Therefore, her/his sex is female, making him/her female, and just any other woman to give birth to a child.

ii. Thomas has a gender change, not an actual sex change, thus he/she is still female.

The definition of transgender is

"Transgender is the state of one's gender identity or gender expression not matching one's assigned sex."
[http://en.wikipedia.org......]

Note the key word sex, which was earlier defined as "biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs"

Since his/her gender changed, not his/her sex, she/he is still female in sex, but male in gender. Note, gender and sex are different. Saying he/she is of male gender, does not mean he/she is actually male by biological definition.

Since Thomas is still biological female, his/her sex had not changed, thus he/she is not the first pregnant man. He/she is like any other woman that gave birth.

==Conclusion==
Since Thomas is still female by definition of sex, he/she had given birth as a woman. Thus, he/she is not the first pregnant man.

Definition of sex

"Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs."
[http://www.med.monash.edu.au......]

Definition of transgender
"Transgender is the state of one's gender identity or gender expression not matching one's assigned sex."
[http://en.wikipedia.org......]

Since transgenders are free of sex, Thomas is still biological female.

wampe

Con

I would like to open with thanking Pro for creating this debate for an interesting topic. This seems to be an area where biology and law collide in interesting ways. I propose the following definitions to be used. If Pro disagrees with them I am perfectly willing to consider alternatives.

Definitions (Oxford Dictionaries)

Law – “The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties”

Male – “Of or denting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring”

Female – “Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes”

The facts of the case

The person at the center of this debate is Thomas Beatie as stated in rule 2 of round 1. Thomas was born Tracy Lehuanai in Hawaii(1). As far as I can tell Tracy would have fit the definition of female at this time. Around the age of 10 years old Tracy began to “self-identify with the male gender” and “at 23 year old began testosterone hormone treatment to transition to living life as a man”(1). In 2002 he/she underwent a sex reassignment surgery or “top surgery” but did not undergo sterilization as it “was not a requirement to undergo a valid sex change anywhere in the United State(1)” Tracy then legally had his/her name changed to Thomas and “officially changed his name and sex marker from female to male on all of his state and federal documents, including his birth certificate, driver’s license, passport, and social security index(1). Thomas Beatie gave birth to three children from 2008 to 20102(2).

The big question

So was Thomas Beatie considered male of female when his/her children were born? This is where the rubber meets the road as they say. If we look at the definition of male and female it would seem that Thomas would fall under the female definition instead of the male. He/She could bear offspring and at the time had ova which were fertilized. As a society though, we life under a set of laws that we all operate under. Legally speaking, Thomas was a male at the time his children were born. So according to the rules that we live by Thomas as male at the time his children were born. Looking back at the definition of male we can see a small problem. It is very vague.

The definition of male states that males “typically has motile gametes”. If we have an atypical situation, as we have in this case, the definition is not functional. Furthermore it would seem to indicate that a child born with our motile gametes typically would not be considered male. This is precisely why we use the law to distinguish such complicated issues that are not “black and white” decisions. So as per the the system of rules that we recognize and live under, Thomas Beatie was a male at the time his children were born.

Rebuttal

1) Using you definition of “sex” we are looking for differences in biology, chromosomes, hormones, and sex organs. I think we can agree that Thomas’s biology and hormones are different from your typical female while Thomas’s chromosomes and sex organs would be similar to a typical female. In my opinion I am not qualified to render an informed opinion on this and will defer to our legal system.

2) Legaly speaking, Thomas underwent a “valid sex change(1)” which does not require sterilization. Also if we were to examine Thomas’s birth certificate or driver’s license it would have sex as male. During several court cases experts have been called to testify and in August of this year the “Arizona Appeals Court declared that the marriage of the Beaties was valid” ie. man and wife. This means that according to the rules we live by, it has been decided that Thomas is a male.


(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 2
funnycn

Pro

==Rebuttal==

"Around the age of 10 years old Tracy began to “self-identify with the male gender” and “at 23 year old began testosterone hormone treatment to transition to living life as a man”(1). In 2002 he/she underwent a sex reassignment surgery"
First, you can get testosterone but you will only look like a man, not become one. Also, sex reassignment does not actually change your sex. Sex was already defined as predetermined biological category of male or female defined by internal and external organs as well as chromosomes. The key thing here, is the chromosome. It cannot be changed.


"sex marker from female to male "

What puzzles me here is the fact she did not get a different sex, just a different gender yet it's called a sex marker. Gender and sex ARE different.

" If we look at the definition of male and female it would seem that Thomas would fall under the female definition instead of the male"

Admitting to being wrong?

" As a society though, we life under a set of laws that we all operate under. Legally speaking, Thomas was a male at the time his children were born. So according to the rules that we live by Thomas as male at the time his children were born

Thomas was not a male at the time his children were born. Her sex is female, making her of the female sex, however she may call herself a man but only to the degree of being of the male GENDER not sex.

"Legaly speaking, Thomas underwent a “valid sex change(1)” which does not require sterilization. Also if we were to examine Thomas’s birth certificate or driver’s license it would have sex as male"

However, her sex is female, If I said I was Asian when I'm white, which one would I be? It may sound silly or odd, but this is actually a serious question.

"This means that according to the rules we live by, it has been decided that Thomas is a male."

Just because the government says it's legal it doesn't mean these two things

I it's true

and II it's morally right.

Science is often mad at the government for defining things that aren't true. Like adding 10 sexes when there are only two.

I see you used wikipedia, I'd like to state it is okay to use wikipedia, but don't let it be your only source.

wampe

Con


==Rebuttal==



First, you can get testosterone but you will only look like a man, not become one. Also, sex reassignment does not actually change your sex. Sex was already defined as predetermined biological category of male or female defined by internal and external organs as well as chromosomes. The key thing here, is the chromosome. It cannot be changed.


As you did not propose alternate definitions to male or female I will operate that you agree with the ones I presented.


I agree that simply taking testosterone does not make you become a man. I also agree that the sexual reassignment in its self does not changes your sex.


Where we seem to part ways is if one can change ones sex. Going back to your definition of sex it would seem that if any changes to “biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs” would constitute a change of their sex. This to me seems to be a sloppy definition, as a simple accident involving damage to one’s sexual organs could result in one being defined as something other than what they were originally classified as. Even the definition of male seems vague, in that, if one does not produce sperm it could be argued that one is not male or if one cannot bear children they are not female.


In cases, such as this, where things are not “black or white” it is best to rely on experts in related fields. Our court system has heard arguments from both sides and have decided that Thomas is a male.


On chromosomes specifically, no evidence has been presented that Thomas is male or female genetically. Pro has claimed that Thomas has female chromosomes but has not provided any evidence to that being a fact.


As sex and gender identity is an active area of research and not fully understood, I believe that it is possible that Thomas is genetically different from persons that are defined as female. I am not claiming this as fact, just simply a possibility that may bear fruit as we understand genetics more fully.


"sex marker from female to male "


What puzzles me here is the fact she did not get a different sex, just a different gender yet it's called a sex marker. Gender and sex ARE different.



Sex as you defined earlier is


"Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs."


So if one simply changes the hormonal profile it would change what the sex is. I’ll try to express this another way.


(SEX = C+H+I+O) now, if one changes any of the variables it would change the result. Ie. a different answer for sex.


Using this methodology as I have previously stated is sloppy in my opinion and we should rely on our experts and legal system to bring clarity to complicated issues.


“If we look at the definition of male and female it would seem that Thomas would fall under the female definition instead of the male"



Admitting to being wrong?



I see no admission nor anything that could be construed to be one. I am expressing that is would “seem” that Thomas would fall under the female definition if we are to think in simple terms. I go on to discuss how we define male and female have functional issues. Ie. if one cannot bear offspring or produce eggs than that individual is not female.


“As a society though, we life under a set of laws that we all operate under. Legally speaking, Thomas was a male at the time his children were born. So according to the rules that we live by Thomas as male at the time his children were born



Thomas was not a male at the time his children were born. Her sex is female, making her of the female sex, however she may call herself a man but only to the degree of being of the male GENDER not sex.



The underlined section is commonly referred to an unsupported claim. Pro makes the claim that Thomas was not a male at the time his children were born, yet Pro does not provide any supporting evidence, logic or even a supporting statement. I stand by my previous argument, that, Thomas using medical and legal mechanisms changed from female to male.


"Legaly speaking, Thomas underwent a “valid sex change(1)” which does not require sterilization. Also if we were to examine Thomas’s birth certificate or driver’s license it would have sex as male"



However, her sex is female, If I said I was Asian when I'm white, which one would I be? It may sound silly or odd, but this is actually a serious question.



Again this is not a rebuttal, Pro stating that “her sex is female” does not make it so. It is a fact that Thomas had a “valid sex change” and that sex change did not require sterilization.


To you question, as white is not a race, I would just assume the person stating this to me is a little confused. I have heard people of African descent refer to “Asians” and “Hispanic’s” as “Caucasian’s” so maybe there is something to this.


"This means that according to the rules we live by, it has been decided that Thomas is a male."


Just because the government says it's legal it doesn't mean these two things


This is not a simple matter of the government declaring Thomas to be male. As a society we have formed a legal system, we have passed and changed laws, we have experts in various fields and when all of this is combined the result is Thomas is male.


He has undergone medical changes, that using the definition that you provided, changes the result of sex. I agree that this alone make Thomas male, but it makes it harder to fit Thomas in to one of the male/female boxes. As I have said a few time now, Thomas using the medical and legal tools available has legally changed from female to male.


It should not go unnoticed that Pro never disagrees that Thomas is legally a male. Nor did Pro disagree that the law is “the system of rules” we use. If I were the assuming type, I could reasonably assume that Pro agrees that Thomas is in fact male under the rules we live by.


I it's true


and II it's morally right.


Science is often mad at the government for defining things that aren't true. Like adding 10 sexes when there are only two.


Unsupported statements of fact and should not require a response.


I see you used wikipedia, I'd like to state it is okay to use wikipedia, but don't let it be your only source.


Glad to hear.



In parting, thank you funnycn for creating this debate. More so, thank you for actually arguing for your position in an honest and respectful manor.


Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
Indeed it was. Best of luck.
Posted by wampe 2 years ago
wampe
Same here, it was fun!
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
I haven't had a debate where the opponent hasn't forfeit or didn't use faulty logic. Thank you for this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mr.Lincoln 2 years ago
Mr.Lincoln
funnycnwampeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: More of a convincing argument for Pro