Transgender Identities Exist And Are Valid
Debate Rounds (4)
Hello, everyone. I intend to prove that transgender identities are valid.
In other words, the problem with your idea in particular (including the wording) is that it's impossible to describe people as either men or women without leaving people out or having people meet the criteria of both. You're essentially drawing a line in the sand. No matter how thin your line is, there will be sand in on that line.
Transgender identities are valid because they're the actual reality, instead of an arbitrary binary. Gender is not something pertaining to essentialism, but is a performance and expression. It's an ocean of potential ways to express and identify. And although most societies have tried to split that ocean into two pieces, many have acknowledged more genders as existing. In the Torah, which the Old Testament is based on, there are 6 genders described.
People are so unique and diverse. But most of us are taught at birth by our parents that we fall into two groups, and it was determined by the size of a nub between our legs, because that's what their parents taught them. But to someone who wasn't taught this, it would seem so strange to draw a line in the middle of the ocean so arbitrarily.
I'm assuming by gender, you mean pertaining biological characteristics (which I'll call sex for the sake of clarity). But how objective is sex really? We live in a world where kids are born with genitalia that disproves that sex is objective, and so doctors perform surgery in the baby so they fit into one of the categories. We looked at all the people in the world, and picked a few arbitrary characteristics that varied between people to varied degrees, and decided that there are objectively these categories we call sex/gender.
If sex is objective, then it must be distinguishable. This means that there must be a distinguishable characteristics that everyone of the same sex must have that people of any other sex do not. However, there is no objective thing that everyone of one sex has that no one of any other sex does not have. People can be born with a variety of genitalia, chromosomes, and hormone levels, which is what I assume you mean by biological.
Allow me to list some categories that people can belong to or not belong to: People with breasts, people that can lactate, people with a Y chromosome, people with only X chromosomes, people that can give birth, people that menstruate, people that produce sperm, people that have the hormone estrogen in their blood, people that have gonads inside their body, people who's gonads hang out of their body, people whose nub between their legs is less than 5 cm, people whose nub is greater than or equal to 5 cm in length.
If sex could be objectively determined by these things, it would mean one of two things.
1. Sex is distinguishable in such a way that if someone has fits into one of these categories, you can determine all the categories that person fits into and does not fit into. This is absurd and definitely not true. Can someone who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman use a women's bathroom? Strangely enough, the sign on the door doesn't prevent her bladder from working. And although she can't give birth to a child, coincidentally neither can her mother who has gone through menopause. She may have a Y chromosome, but so does her sibling, who has two X chromosomes as well. Now one might say "well, she has a penis", but the nub between her legs is actually pretty small, since she is someone who was diagnosed with androgen insensitivity syndrome. The point is, what we think of objectively making someone one sex or another are actually pretty ineffective at doing just that. The only reason I used medical terminology throughout this is so people can look it up to confirm it is a thing.
2. The other option is that it's a combination of these things that determine sex. But which ones and how many of them does one need to get to belong to one sex? Is it the size of your nub and your chromosomes? What about when those don't match up? This option is not valid for the same reason as the one above.
Also, you never answered the argument of gender being a performance. From what we wear to how we talk, there a variety of different expressions. Society just limits how people can express and identify based on the arbitrary categorization that is sex. Phrases like "boys don't cry" and "ladies behave more politely" stem from these things. Anyone can cry, and anyone can be rude. The fact that there are societies with more than two genders further prove this.
In the end, a doctor writes the sex on the birth certificate. The baby's genitalia doesn't hold the pen and sign. And definitely neither does their DNA or some omniscient being. Doctors can be wrong and subjective, especially if the system they use is wrong and subjective.
For someone who claims it foolish to move from objectivity, the con side of the debate sure likes to use subjective terms like deluded, normal, and abnormal. The analogy of a heart makes no sense in this context, because people who are different aren't faulty. They are merely different. Arguments of objectivity must hold out against all possible examples. There cannot be counterexamples at all. The only way the con's argument can hold weight is if the con were to declare that the people in the examples above are not people, if the con claims that every person's sex is objectively male or female.
Gender was never objective. Civilizations throughout history have had different views of sex and gender. The argument of nobody having a problem with it is faulty because from ancient times until now, there have been people who have identified as a different gender than they were assigned at birth. Throughout this debate, the analysis of the subjectivity of gender between cultures has gone untouched by the con.
Transgender identities exist and are valid identitigzfdes. There are even some identities that would seem to be outside the traditional gender roles of western society are valid traditional identities in other societies. Even if one were to believe that gender is completely linked to "biological sex", it has been shown that sex isn't objective. And of course transgender identities are valid. Calling them deviant does nothing; deviancy is just a term used by those with power to target those who are different than them. And we see that all the time. Transgender people are on the receiving end of an absurdly high murder rate.
In the end, the con's arguments boil down into a belief of what is natural and what is not natural, which doesn't hold up against the variation we see in the world. The con never answers the argument that sex is a categorization created by humans, and enforced by humans. It isn't a mathematical concept like adding two positive integers, it's a doctor looking at a baby's genitalia and trying to find the best match between two choices because that is what society says to do. There is no mathematical equation derived from the relation of different fundamental principles of our universe that results in a mathematical constant that represents the length a clitoris must be before it is too long to be a clitoris but too short to be a penis. That number was made by a group of doctors at John Hopkins in the 1950's. One can make arguments towards whether people can reproduce, but people can still be valid human beings without having kids.
To conclude by reiterating the pro's main argument, people can choose how they identify because gender isn't objective. Gender is performance, and people can decide how they wish to perform.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate