The Instigator
Opulence
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
FuzzyCatPotato
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Transgender people are mentally ill people, can anyone convince me otherwise?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 4/15/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,124 times Debate No: 73516
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Opulence

Pro

Transgender people are mentally ill. Society is currently accommodating for the transgender behavior & science is trying to reshape reality through medical operations. This sad state of affairs is leading to the propagation of a mental illness, because we are treating the symptoms & not the cause. What we really have here is a broken spirit that can't identify with a community (the grass is always greener).

I find it hard to agree with the following
1. Transgender is normal/natural.
2. Gender is a social construct.
Because
1. Failure to accept the reality of your sex is a mental illness.
2. This would imply only certain roles would apply to certain sexes. Whilst I agree that is the case with procreation, I believe it sexist to imply that only men are engineers & only girls are dancers. I would argue that the reality is people cannot do anything, people trend towards certain activities & skills & the natural trend of so called gender roles is indicative of how nature has shaped us.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Attempts to rebut your points:

You state: "I find it hard to agree with the following 1. Transgender is normal/natural. Because 1. Failure to accept the reality of your sex is a mental illness."

1: This assumes that the resolution is true -- that transgenderism is a mental illness. Basically, you're proving your argument with your conclusion.

2: This is an appeal to nature and is a fallacious argument; see link for why [3].

You state: I find it hard to agree with the following 2. Gender is a social construct. 2. This would imply only certain roles would apply to certain sexes. Whilst I agree that is the case with procreation, I believe it sexist to imply that only men are engineers & only girls are dancers. I would argue that the reality is people cannot do anything, people trend towards certain activities & skills & the natural trend of so called gender roles is indicative of how nature has shaped us.

1: Gender is a social construct. See Revel and Riot below.

2: If gender is a social construct, that means that we can reject the social construct and allow men and women broader roles in society. If gender is inherent, then that means that gender roles are inescapable. Yet women frequently work as engineers and scientists; men frequently nurse children and prepare food. Both are "traditional" gender roles.

Attempts to convince you:

Transgenderism is not a mental disorder (illness).

1: The American Psychiatric Association recently classified Gender Dysphoria as not a disorder in DSM5 [1][4]. The APA's DSM is considered the authoritative scientific text on current designations of mental illness.

2: As Revel and Riot states [2]:

When you look across cultures, you will find that people have had a wide range of beliefs about gender. Some cultures look at people and see six genders, while others see two. Some cultures have created specific ways for people to live in roles that are different from that assigned to them at birth. In addition, different cultures also vary in their definitions of masculine and feminine. Whether we view someone as transgender depends on the cultural lenses we are looking through as well as how people identify themselves.

Basically, gender is based on culture. Consider that in India, there's general acceptance for Hijras, transgender or transsexual people [4]. If gender were not based on culture, then that would prevent Hijras from being a gender; yet cultural differences mean gender identity differences.

3: So then why do transgender people exhibit stress and trauma?

An interesting comparison to homosexuality exists here. Homosexuals in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and early 00's all exhibited higher levels of stress, drug consumption, and other attributes of increased stress and poorer quality of life.

Why?

Largely because they were marginalized by society. Think about how you would feel if people bullied you, your family disowned you, and your church despised you. Not so hot! As homosexual acceptance has risen in the USA, homosexuals have magically become less likely to engage in risky behaviors. Similarly, when homosexuals get married, their incidences of events decrease -- because they have found support in a hateful world.

Homosexuals are now more widely accepted. Transgender people are not. Hence, they feel marginalized and thus have more psychological issues. If society opened up, then transgender problems would likely decrease.

Similarly, as gender roles become more fluid (with more women taking male roles and vice versa) transgenderism may magically disappear. How? Since somebody is only transgender if they feel a mismatch between their external and mental gender, and since external gender is based on cultural norms (see above), then when gender is meaningless then people can choose to associate with whatever previously "gendered" activity they choose. (If it's a mental illness, then this is impossible.)

Summary

Basically, transgenderism is a result of society hating on differences from established gender norms. In the same way the feminism in the 1900s was not a mental disorder, neither is transgenderism.

[1] http://thinkprogress.org...
[2] http://www.revelandriot.com...
[3] http://rationalwiki.org...
[4] http://www.salon.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Opulence

Pro

Sorry for the late response. I was busy working to pay tax so other people can spend my money.

Response to rebuttal

Regarding 1. Transgender is normal/natural

So my understanding is we are both in agreement that transgender cannot be called "natural/normal" for this arguments sake, because it relates to the logical fallacy of appealing to nature?

Regarding 2. Gender is a social construct.

You give reference to Revel and Riot - "National Center for Transgender Equality". This is like a Christian telling an Atheist the bible is evidence.

To quote but a few examples from [1]
- " There are a number of theories about why transgender people exist although there is not yet scientific consensus"

- " Some speculate "

- "Is being transgender a mental illness? No, but this remains a stereotype about transgender people. Gender Identity Disorder is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-4th Edition (DSM-IV), a guide used by mental health professionals to diagnose psychological conditions"
I'd like to emphasize the "used by mental health professionals to diagnose psychological conditions".

On one hand you're saying Transgender are not mentally ill [3], yet on the other hand you're saying we use mental health professionals to diagnose Gender Identity disorder....which is used as a justification for sex-change operations.
What is actually happening is the bullish LGBT lobby is putting pressure on people willing to speak the truth. There are still brave Doctors that are willing to speak out[4].

- "leads to emotional distress. This pain often can be relieved by freely expressing our genders, wearing clothing we are comfortable in, and, for some, making a physical transition from one gender to another."

They 'feel' mentally isolated because they didn't fit the mould they "perceived". They 'feel' an urge to pander to society and norms. They 'feel' they should be a snake.

See what I did there? Appeal to emotion (another logical fallacy see [2]), use sentences you agree with...hoping I get a tick for each statement then imply the last sentence must also be true.

Just to put into context if I was to think I'm a snake & cut my arms off so I could slither about...then appeal to emotions about how it relieves my pain...I'd be consider mentally ill. Then when i say ...I'm only this way because society has made me this way. You'd think I'm crackers & am looking for a scapegoat to justify my irrational mentally ill behaviour.
The conclusion I did not fine [1] to provide a convincing argument. More like it was a pamphlet to stop LGBT self-flagellation.

Response to attempts to convince me

Attempts to appeal to emotions, which doesn't work on me, I'm an heartless engineer.

On gender & culture, I've been to Thailand & the transgender community is still isolated. It's a classic birds of a feather flock together example. The society accepts them, because Thailand is pretty laisser faire, however they still are not able to integrated and never will be, because as I've been saying throughout this entire debate, suffer from a mental illness & it's their spirit that is seriously broken, regardless of how much they change their body to accommodate. They think they are the black sheep of the family and therefore they are [descartes].

Regarding "Similarly, as gender roles become more fluid (with more women taking male roles and vice versa) transgenderism may magically disappear. How? Since somebody is only transgender if they feel a mismatch between their external and mental gender"

Where you argue their gender is caused by cultural norms, I am arguing they are weak of mind & therefore have to hide in a perceived stereotype in order to do a specific role.

I ask you did Margret Thatcher didn't change into a man in order to lead the UK? ..No.

Whereas you are saying a girl who suffers a persecution complex has to change into a man in order to met her calling in life (aka an engineer?). In other words you are saying that it is perfectly rational to change sex because society has made it too hard for her. If society wasn't there she wouldn't change sex.

The reality I've experienced firsthand is a male engineer (meets all the social norms) changed his/her sex to a women. He used to have a wife & kid, but after the divorce went on a slippery slope into depression, etc and now says he sees this expression of being transgender is the only way to relieve the pain...what more creepy is he dresses up as his wife. The guy is nuts.

Summary

Transgender people are mentally ill [4]. They blame their illness on society norms. They think that by changing society they will cure their mental illness. This is hubris. This phenomena( LGBT {now intersex...common please you guys are starting to sound ridiculous}) transcends all societies. The Ancient Greeks, Norse, Indians [5]. Again it rears its head in the bible [(Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (Deuteronomy 22:5).] and in Buddhism [6]
To quote a latin phrase "nihil sub sole novum" (there is nothing new under the sun) [Ecclesiastes].

We've known about this subset of humanity for a while now. Throughout the ages they've tried to find their place. They never will because they are mentally ill, something will always be "perceived to be wrong" regardless of how much society panders to them.

Finally consider this, transgenderism is an evolutionary dead end. Is it right or compassionate to advocate the genocide of people for self-gratification?

References

I don't like using wiki links, but they can be referenced out to further reading.

[1] http://www.revelandriot.com...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://thinkprogress.org...

[4] http://cnsnews.com...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org... & http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

FuzzyCatPotato

Con

REBUTTALS

[A] Pro: Revel and Riot is like Christian telling Atheist bible is evidence

1: Christians regard the Bible as true. I don't regard R&R as true. This is a false analogy.

2: Just because a group advocates for something doesn't mean their evidence is wrong.

[B] Pro: You're saying Transgender are not mentally ill, yet you're saying we diagnose Gender Identity as a justification for sex-change operations.

1: The American Psychiatric Association classifies Gender Dysphoria as not a disorder in DSM5, the most recent [1][4]. This reflects a fundamental shift. As ThinkProgress.org states [1]:

"The new manual will diagnose transgender people with “Gender Dysphoria,” which communicates the emotional distress that can result from “a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender.” This will allow for affirmative treatment ... without the stigma of disorder. ... [T]he APA ... released ... a position ... affirming transgender ... rights."

And as Salon.com states [4]:

"Kelley Winters, Ph.D. spoke that “in the absence of dysphoria, gender identity and expression that vary from assigned birth sex are not, in themselves, grounds for diagnosing a mental disorder.” The precedent for this criterion is clear: Since the publication of the DSM-IV, in 1994, the APA has largely sought to avoid pathologizing symptoms unless they cause “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” Dr. Diane Ehrensaft of the Wright Institute echoed the activists’ accusations. “The mental health profession has been consistently doing harm to children who are not ‘gender normal,’ and they need to retrain,” she said in an interview with Psychiatric Times."

[C] Pro: The bullish LGBT lobby is putting pressure on people willing to speak the truth.

1: Pro's source is CNSN, founded to "counteract" liberal media bias [6]. No such bias exists [7][8].

2: Pro's has no impact. Pro just says "look, my viewpoint is suppressed!"

3: Transgendered individuals (those without power in the status quo) are the ones fighting, not nontransgendered individuals (those with power in the status quo). Julia Serano writes: [5]

[P]eople ... assumed .... I would write one of those confessional tell-alls .... that ends, not with me becoming an outspoken trans activist or feminist, but with the consummation of my womanhood in the form of my first sexual experience with a man. I am not surprised[.] ... [T]his was the only sort of story that non-trans publishers and media producers would ever allow transsexual women to tell.

4: Pro's doctor has been wrong on similar issues. As Media Matters states [16]:

Expert consensus doesn't comport with McHugh's depiction of trans people as mentally ill. As the American Psychological Association notes, experts now acknowledge transgender identities as "part of the human condition," with many individuals' gender identities established by the age of four. .... McHugh's unwillingness to accept the medical consensus on transgender people is far from surprising. A mentor of Fox News doctor and serial anti-LGBT misinformer Keith Ablow, McHugh has long peddled anti-LGBT pseudoscience, including the myth that transgender women are actually secret gay men. McHugh promotes the thoroughly discredited notion that being gay is a choice[.]

[D] Pro: They 'feel' an urge to pander to society and norms. They 'feel' they should be a snake. See what I did there? Appeal to emotion (another logical fallacy see [2])

1: Wanting to be another species is not the same as wanting to be another gender. Gender is a construct (biological sex is a fact; what biological sex means is called "gender", and changes from society to society, proving it's something humans invent) and is possible to surmount; species is *not* a construct.

2: An appeal to emotion is [11]:

whereby a debater attempts to win an argument by trying to get an emotional reaction from the opponent(s) and/or audience, e.g. eliciting fear or outrage.

I'm not trying to get a response from anybody in this debate. Instead, I'm pointing out that society is the cause of these emotions felt by transgendered individuals. If we changed society, then the psychological issues mentioned by Pro would disappear or at least massively decrease, as evidenced by Dr. Menvielle [4].

This does not meet the definition of an appeal to emotion.

[E] Pro: Whereas you are saying a girl who suffers a persecution complex has to change into a man in order to met her calling in life (aka an engineer?).

1: That's not what I'm saying. Feminism helps women who want to perform male functions as a female; transgendered persons want to *be* the alternate gender. These are two totally different issues.

[F] Pro: A male engineer changed sex. The guy is nuts.

1: Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient [12].

[G] Pro: This phenomena transcends societies.

1: Just because societies haven't accepted transgenderism doesn't mean they can't.

[H] Pro: Is it right to advocate the genocide of people?

1: Transgendered individuals aren't "a people"; they are a naturally occuring a subset of the population; they *can't* die out.

SCIENTIFIC STUDIES and FACTS

First, look to the DSM, which identifies transgendered persons as not disordered [1][4].

Second, look to Rametti 2010 [13]:

"Our results show that the white matter microstructure pattern in untreated FtM transsexuals is closer to the pattern of subjects who share their gender identity (males) than those who share their biological sex (females). Our results provide evidence for an inherent difference in the brain structure of FtM transsexuals."

And Rametti 2011 [14]:

"Our results show that the white matter microstructure pattern in untreated MtF transsexuals falls halfway between the pattern of male and female controls. The nature of these differences suggests that some fasciculi do not complete the masculinization process in MtF transsexuals during brain development."

Transsexuals's brains are fundamentally different from their gender assigned at birth.

Third, look to Zhou 95 [15]:

"Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminals (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour, is larger in men than in women. A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. .... Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones."

Fourth, when cultures accept transsexuals, transsexuals do much better [17][18]. Salon.com [4]:

"Edgardo Menvielle, M.D., M.S.H.S., recently completed a comparative study of Zucker’s program and his own. The results showed that children in Menvielle’s program, which provides peer support for gender variant youth, exhibited “less pathological tendencies” than those in Zucker’s [who supported GID as a disorder]."

A NOTE

Pro's sources [1] is my source [2]. Pro's source [3] is my source [1]. Pro only has 4 distinct sources. That said, I accidentally included [9] and [10], which don't exist; I have only 16 sources.

REFERENCES

[5] http://www.juliaserano.com...
[6] http://cnsnews.com...
[7] http://rationalwiki.org...
[8] http://rationalwiki.org...
[9] N/A
[10] N/A
[11] http://rationalwiki.org...
[12] http://rationalwiki.org...
[13] http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com...
[14] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[15] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[16] http://mediamatters.org...
[17] http://www.trans-health.com...
[18] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Opulence

Pro

Prenote


[^X] refers to previous Con reference, whereas [X] refers to Pro's current reference.


Response to Rebuttals


[A.1] - Why reference something if you don't believe it to be true?


[A.2] - Accepted. Con has failed to argue against my quip that the reference was more like a pamphlet to stop LGBT self flagellation.


[B.1] - To save the time of this pointless path we are trending down I shall summarize.


The degree of legal recognition & medical classification provided to transsexualism varies widely throughout the world.


Where America says this is perfectly normal (i.e. not a mental illness), Russia would say, this is a mental disorder this person is detached from reality we must ban him/her/it from driving a car" [1]. Likewise the World Health Organisation (WHO) clearly includes "gender incongruence" as a medical condition [2].


The fact that America is constantly changing its position on many mental illness definitions as the generations move on is eloquently explained in [1].


There is no reference [^4] to analysis.


[C.1] - Con provides reference [^7] & [^8], which are outrageously impartial.


[^7] references a gallup study, found at [11]. The results show there massive discrepancy between trust in the media & political affinity. Media is too liberal (44%), compared to too conservative (19%). Con provides [^8] that takes less than a minute to break Godwin's Law.


Further still when searching for the reverse "Conservative Bias" [4] I find myself confronted with yet more conservative bashing.


In short Con's reference is discredited. News source [^6] is valid.


[C.2] - Don't pretend it's not a thing, see [5], [6], [7].[8] & here is the most despicable one [9]+[10]


[C.3] - What is your point? She's got a higher chance of getting any publishing deal than me.


I will concede that transgender individuals, ARE indeed the ones fighting for society to play along in their mental illness.


[C.4] - What Con is trying to do here is discredit the Doctor Paul McHugh's. Con's source [^16] is completely wrong about Doctor Paul McHugh.


Doctor Paul McHugh worked at John Hopkins University, which coincidentally it was the first place to do the fist male to female sexual reassignment surgeries[12]. He himself was pro gender reassignment in his youth, however after witnessing the outcomes on post operation patients he came to two conclusions[15].


Adult males who wish to surgically alter themselves to appear anatomically female fall into two main groups: (1) "conflicted and guilt-ridden homosexual men" and (2) "heterosexual (and some bisexual) males who found intense sexual arousal in cross-dressing as females".


After post operation the patients were analyses the outcome was:


1. They [the transgendered individuals] were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before. The hope that they would emerge now from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled


2. They expressed little interest in and seemed indifferent to babies or children (typically female interests)


3. Third, they came off as caricatures of the opposite sex


Finally Dr Paul McHugh alongside Dr Folstein invented the mini mental state examination(MMSE) for assessing dementia and Alzheimer's[13]. The guy is a unsung hero, to even imply this man is a guy of 'pseudoscience' is inconceivable. Disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst


[D.1] - Subjective, see [16]. For example take the following statements



  • Karen can't be a fireman because she's a women [social construct]

  • Alan Turing can't have sex with other men because he's a man [social construct]

  • Fritzl can't have an incestual relationship with his daughter because it's wrong [social construct & law]


However



  • Bob can't be a pregnant mommy because he's a man [stating reality]

  • Alan can't be a women because he's a man [stating reality]


[D.2] - Con I'm not implying that you were trying to appeal to my emotion. I was suggesting that the transgender movement do. The example of feeling like a snake is just a manifestation of this.


Con has no evidence. [^4] does not exist.


[E.1] - That is why transgender people are mentally ill.


[F.1] - Con misquotes me, please use Ellipses[17] when quoting with omissions. What I actually said was


" A male engineer... changed sex to a women... what more creepy is he dresses up as his wife. The guy is nuts.."

 

However point about anecdotal evidence is acknowledged. As per [^12] "While anecdotes — when true, at least — are nice illustrative stories, they do not constitute evidence".


[G.1] - Con misinterprets, Pro is arguing that societies are irrelevant. The transgender person is still mentally ill regardless of society. They can't associate with the reality of who they are. much in the same way an anorexia person sees themselves as fat in the mirror.


[H.1] - I would argue Con is encouraging the death of many family lines.


Response to SCIENTIFIC STUDIES & FACTS


First point covered above in section [B.1]


Second point is stating transgender people have undergone a birth defect and are therefore mentally deformed for the body they have. Study was done on a population of 18 ftM trans, 24 M and 19F, these numbers are hardly representative of the population. If you took female CEO's of blue chip companies I'm surmise they would exhibit similar patterns as ftm. Also the reference does not provide the full text without membership.


Third point, I refer emphasises second point


Fourth point [^18] et al, is basically saying children that were persecuted were distressed whereas those that were not persecuted were not distressed. It is therefore implying that the gender incongruity in itself is not enough to cause distress. Fair enough however Con has misinterpretted this and come to the conclusion that it's not a mental illness because it doesn't cause distress.


Has Con considered the use of language?


Definition of incongruity = The state of being incongruous, incompatible


Definition of mental illness = A condition which causes serious disorder in a person's behaviour or thinking.


Definition of dysphoria = A state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction with life.


Definition of disorder = A state of confusion.


Finally


Is Con arguing that transgender people are defective?


References


[1] http://rt.com...


[2] http://apps.who.int...


[3] http://www.newworldeconomics.com...


[4] http://rationalwiki.org...


[5] https://www.youtube.com...


[6] https://www.youtube.com...


[7] https://www.youtube.com...


[8] https://www.youtube.com...


[9] https://www.youtube.com...


[10] https://www.youtube.com...


[11] http://www.gallup.com...


[12] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[13] http://www.healthafter50.com...


[14] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[15] McHugh, P. R. (2006). "Surgical Sex" in The Mind Has Mountains: Reflections on Society and Psychiatry. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press


[16] http://www.debate.org...


[17] http://www.thepunctuationguide.com...


[18] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...


FuzzyCatPotato

Con

REBUTTALS

[A] Why reference something if you don't believe it to be true?

Con's point loses impact. I'm not accepting R&R as unconditionally true, merely correct, making an analogy to the bible incorrect.



[B1] Russia would say, this is a mental disorder

1: Russia isn't a scientific body; it's an oppressive nation.

2: RT is literally Russian nationalistic propaganda [22-25].

[B2] WHO clearly includes "gender incongruence" as a medical condition.

1: Pro cites a WHO draft, not an actual publication.

2: The WHO draft doesn't even classify GIC as a disorder; it merely defines it. No impact.

3: Pro failed to provide any reason to prefer the WHO (which was moving over the APA, which accepts transgender as not a disorder.

[B3] no reference [^4]

1: Look in round 1.



[C1] [^7] references a gallup study ... Media is too liberal (44%), compared to too conservative (19%).

1: What people think isn't reality; 40% of Americans think young-earth creationism is true [19].

[C2] Con provides [^8] ... break Godwin's Law

1: Pro fails to show how.

[C3] Conservative Bias ... conservative bashing.

1: Irrelevant to the falsity of liberal bias.

[C4] Con's reference is discredited. News source is valid.

1: Pro failed to rebut the absence of liberal media bias.

2: That's fallacious. Even if my source was wrong, that does not mean that Pro's source is right [22].

[C5] Don't pretend it's not a thing

Pro provides a bunch of YouTube links in which LGBT activists are mean. This falls waaaaaaay short of broad media censorship of anti-transgender activists, which is what Pro has been claiming. Consider that the anti-transgender activist Pro cites has been published widely. Would such a thing occur if the evil liberal media had a grasp on the news of the nation?

[C6] She's ... higher chance ... publishing deal. I ... concede ... transgender individuals ... ones fighting for society to play along[.]

1: Pro accepts the media bias against transgendered individuals.

[C7] Con is trying to ... discredit ... Paul McHugh[.]

1: Yes. He is not an authoritative source. Thus, appealing to him is fallacious.

[C8] McHugh ... John Hopkins University ... first place to do ... sexual reassignment surgeries.

1: Irrelevant.

[C9] He ... was pro gender reassignment ... came to two conclusions[.]

1: Those conclusions are the ones McHugh presented in the article. The fact that Pro reasserts them does not enhance McHugh's credibility.

[C10] McHugh ... invented the mini mental state examination[.] ... [T]o even imply this man is a guy of 'pseudoscience' is inconceivable.

1: The discoverer of DNA is now a racist. Great men mess up [20].

2: McHugh no longer follows scientific consensus, which (as shown in the APA) does not accept gender dysphoria as a disorder.

3: Pro fails to respond to McHugh's other failings, such as the idea that homosexuality is a choice, which science has rejected.



[D1] Subjective, see [16]

1: Pro cites a Debate.org poll. This is ad populum [21], or at least a bad source.

2: Pro states "Alan can't be a women because he's a man". This is affirming Pro's conclusion, and is thus fallacious [25]. This ignores sex-change surgeries. And, most of all, this ignores the topic of this debate: trans*gender* individuals, not necessarily tran*sexual* individuals. Transgender individuals don't think they *are* the opposite gender -- they *identify* that way, and expect to be treated as such.

[D2] appeal to my emotion ... the transgender movement do

1: Given that Pro's "proof" of the transgender movement appealing to emotion is Pro's strawman example, you can reject this.



[F1] Con misquotes me, please use Ellipses

1: Sorry; accident.

[F2] anecdotal evidence is acknowledged

1: Good.



[G1] Pro is arguing ... societies are irrelevant

1: They quite obviously aren't. As [4] pointed out, when transgendered and transsexual people are respected, they perform better.



[H1] Con is encouraging the death of many family lines

1: First, Pro argues that I am causing genocide of transsexual people. When that was blatantly, obviously false, Pro walked it back.

2: Pro assumes family lines are important. Why? No reason.



SCIENTIFIC STUDIES & FACTS

1st: Pro argues that he responded in B. I've shown why this is false. The APA is a respected psychiatric organization and disagrees with Pro.



2nd, 1: Pro: "Second point is stating transgender people have undergone a birth defect and are therefore mentally deformed for the body they have. Study was done on a population of 18 ftM trans, 24 M and 19F, these numbers are hardly representative of the population."

1: Pro doesn't contest the two studies' results, just whether they have sufficient sample size. Thus, you must accept the point that the brains of transsexuals are distinct from those of non-transsexuals, showing that the transsexuality is inherent in their brain structure rather than a delusion. (If you reject this, then that means that *all* gender is a delusion -- because the transsexuals *think* that they are male or female because of their brain structure, just like a male thinks he's male because of his male brain structure.)

2nd, 2: Pro: If you took female CEO's of blue chip companies I'm surmise they would exhibit similar patterns as ftm.

1: Why?

2: Pro is saying that successful female leaders have male brains. This is both wrong and offensive.



3rd: I ... emphasises second point

1: Already rebutted.

2: You must accept my point that transsexuals brains mimic those of genetically male or female individuals, suggesting that their "actual (ie, mental)" gender is literally different from their physical (nonmental) gender.



4th: Fourth point [^18] et al, is basically saying children that were persecuted were distressed whereas those that were not persecuted were not distressed. It is therefore implying that the gender incongruity in itself is not enough to cause distress. Fair enough however Con has misinterpretted this and come to the conclusion that it's not a mental illness because it doesn't cause distress.

1: Pro states "it's not a mental illness because it doesn't cause distress". Given that mental illness, as defined by the APA, has to include some level of distress for the person with the illness, this certainly fits the definition of not mentally ill.



LANGUAGE

What point is Pro making? While definitions are lovely, they don't make a point.



QUESTION

Pro: Is Con arguing that transgender people are defective?

1: No? Transsexuals tend to have different brain structures than nontranssexuals; that is all.



SUMMARY

Conduct: Neither.

Grammar: Neither.

Arguments: Clear Con vote. Con has rebutted every Pro point. Con has provided two ways to vote Con: First, vote Con because gender is a social construct. Trangendered individuals cannot be deluded when it is society that creates their nonconformity. Second, vote con because transsexual brains are empirically proven to be those of their identified gender, showing that their brain function is normal for somebody of that gender.

Sources: Clear Con vote. Con has cited scientific studies that showed that transsexuals have the brains of the gender they identify with, showing that their mental state is caused by reality, not by delusion. Con has cited 21 sources, including many published and respected news sources and articles on logical fallacies. Half of Pro's sources are YouTube links about aggressive LGBT activists; the other half reference no published scientific studies and reference very few published articles at all. Pro has merely 16 sources.



REFERENCES

[19] http://www.gallup.com...
[20] http://rationalwiki.org...
[21] http://rationalwiki.org...
[22] http://rationalwiki.org...
[23] http://rationalwiki.org...
[24] http://www.cjr.org...
[25] http://www.spectator.co.uk...
[26] http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Opulence

Pro

Foreword

I would like to thank the Con for my first debate on debate.org. I've found the experience very informative & pleasant.

Summary

The crux of this debate is determining whether transgender people are mentally ill or not.

Con has provided essentially 2 arguments

  1. Transgender/Gender Dysphoria/Transexual is not a mental illness, it is the outcome of society. Con argues that gender is a social construct & this can(may) cause other unrelated mental illnesses (i.e anxiety, depression etc) within the individual.
  2. Transgenders are biologically different(in the brain), as outlined by some of Con's scientific references.

Either way the outcome is

  1. Transsexuals may develop mental illnesses because of their inability to deal with society(which is mean to them) & the failure to accept the reality of their sex.
  2. Transsexuals are mentally deformed. (Should we class this as a disease, wherein the body and brain mismatch?)

There are numerous possible explanations for transgenderism:

  • Genetics
  • Brain structure
  • Brain function
  • Prenatal androgen exposure
  • Autogynephilic
  • Psychological & behavioural.

Whatever the reason the outcome is often a life of misery for the individual.

Currently America is undergoing massive changes on the way it views & treats transgenders.

Whereas the World Health Organisation(WHO) still includes GID (section F64) under the mental & behavioural disorders, [1].

Furthermore the WHO discusses other forms of Gender Identity. This may be why Con and Pro are attacking this debate from different angles.

The WHO goes on to state:

F64.1 Dual-role transvestism

The wearing of clothes of the opposite sex for part of the individual's existence in order to enjoy the temporary experience of membership of the opposite sex, but without any desire for a more permanent sex change or associated surgical reassignment, and without sexual excitement accompanying the cross-dressing.

Which I would call a mental illness at worst & a perverted autogynephilic at best.

Below are some other interesting mental disorders:

F66.0 Sexual maturation disorder
The patient suffers from uncertainty about his or her gender identity or sexual orientation, which causes anxiety or depression. Most commonly this occurs in adolescents who are not certain whether they are homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual in orientation, or in individuals who, after a period of apparently stable sexual orientation (often within a longstanding relationship), find that their sexual orientation is changing.
F66.1 Egodystonic sexual orientation
The gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it.

Con's argument about society may be the cause of F66.0 F66.1, however the inability of the individual to deal with it still makes them mentally ill. The idea that because the symptoms are caused by society this somehow absolves the individual of having mentally ill symptoms is laughable.
The idea you can change society to accommodate people who suffer from F66.0 and F66.1 is hubris.

Conclusion

Either:

1. Transsexuals develop mental illnesses because of their inability to deal with society & the failure to accept the reality of their sex.

2. Transsexuals are mentally/physically deformed, wherein the brain & the body mismatch.

[Con will probably say "false dilemma", in keeping with the theme of using a logical fallacy list that is so exhaustive no matter what anyone says, their opponent can immediately cry logical fallacy (to discredit the point) and then not bother refuting ones conclusions]

The fact that Con blames society and social constructs concludes point 1.

The fact that Con points to science that says transgenders brains are different concludes point 2.

Pro holds to the belief that counselling can mitigate aforementioned mental illnesses. Whereas surgry can mitigate aforementioned mental deformity.


FINALLY VOTE PRO

References

[1] http://apps.who.int...

FuzzyCatPotato

Con

REBUTTALS

[A] Pro: "Con has provided essentially 2 arguments[.] .... Either way the outcome is [1] Transsexuals may develop mental illnesses because of their inability to deal with society(which is mean to them) & the failure to accept the reality of their sex. [2] Transsexuals are mentally deformed."

1: The problem with outcome [1] is that Pro is blaming the outcomes on transsexuals, rather than society, which is incorrect. A look at a different issue may make this apparent. Somebody is born black in 1900s America. 1900s America often discriminated against and harmed black people. Under Pro's logic, the black person is responsible, since they aren't able to deal with society. But this is clearly flawed. Just like a modern transsexual, it is society's fault that the black person feels hurt. Being black or transsexual isn't the cause of the problem. This analogy, as I have pointed out, works, because when transsexuals are treated better, they do better [4].

2: The problem with outcome [2] is, as I stated, that the brains of transsexuals are comparable to the brains of their identified gender. In the same way that males and females have differently structured brains in certain areas, transsexuals have differently structured brains. Unless Pro wishes to argue that everything that thinks they are male or female is insane (since both identities are merely based on how their brain works), then we cannot accept that transsexuals are insane (since their identities are also merely based on how their brain works).

[B] Pro: "Genetics Brain structure Brain function Prenatal androgen exposure Autogynephilic Psychological & behavioural. Whatever the reason the outcome is often a life of misery for the individual."

1: Autogynephilia is fundamentally pseudoscientific [27].

2: Note that Pro has not proven any such life of misery.

[C] Pro: "[T]he World Health Organisation(WHO) still includes GID (section F64) under the mental & behavioural disorders, [1]. Furthermore the WHO discusses other forms of Gender Identity. .... F64.1 Dual-role transvestism .... F66.0 Sexual maturation disorder .... F66.1 Egodystonic sexual orientation[.]"

1: It should be noted that the ICD-10 (Pro's source) was published in 1992 [28], while the DSM-5 (Con's source) was published in 2013 [29]. The DSM-5 incorporates recent research (such as the research that I have presented above) into its diagnosis, while the ICD-10 could not.

2: The ICD-10 is slated to be upgraded to the ICD-11 in 2015-17 [28]. The WHO has repeatedly been petitioned to change these classifications [30], and the WHO itself hosts research on exactly that issue [31]. In fact, as Kelly Gutridge states [32]:

"The WHO Working Group for Sexual Disorders and Sexual Health proposes to remove Gender Identity Disorders from the list of mental illnesses, and place it somewhere else, probably within a separate category of sexual disorders."

Basically, the ICD-10 is outdated. The updated version will align with Con's point of view.

[D] Pro: "The idea that because the symptoms are caused by society this somehow absolves the individual of having mentally ill symptoms is laughable."

1: If somebody is mentally ill, the symptoms are caused by the mental illness. If somebody is discriminated against, the symptoms are caused by society. It's as simple as that.

[E] Pro: 1. Transsexuals develop mental illnesses because of their inability to deal with society & the failure to accept the reality of their sex. 2. Transsexuals are mentally/physically deformed, wherein the brain & the body mismatch.

1: See [A].

[F] Pro: [Con will probably say "false dilemma", in keeping with the theme of using a logical fallacy list that is so exhaustive no matter what anyone says, their opponent can immediately cry logical fallacy (to discredit the point) and then not bother refuting ones conclusions]

1: See [A]. I've rebutted Pro's points here, as I have at all other occasions.

2: Proving a logical fallacy shows that you are using flawed logic and thus your conclusion is not validly arrived at, which shows a failure to meet burden of proof.

3: =(

SUMMARY

Arguments:

For something to be a mental illness, by the APA's definition, it must cause distress and/or harm. Pro has failed this burden. Those closest Pro comes is citing the flawed Dr. McHugh.

Further, Con has shown that society is largely to blame for any harms that come to transsexuals and transgendered individuals; this amounts to discrimination, not mental illness. Pro has not presented any counterevidence to Con's studies on transsexual acceptance.

Further, Con has shown that transsexuals have functionally male or female brain structures, at least locally. This shows that transsexuality is just as "normal" as normal male/female brain function; the only difference is that transsexuals have reproductive organs that align with a different gender than their brain's gender. Pro has not presented any counterevidence to Con's studies on transsexual brains. Pro's arguments that this shows mental deformity would also show that "normal" males or females are crazy; this is false.

Ultimately, you have 0 ways to vote Pro and 2 ways to vote Con.

Sources:

Con clearly has the source advantage.

Pro has used 25 sources, compared to Con's 30.

6 of Pro's sources are mere YouTube videos of LGBT activists being mean.

2 of Pro's sources are merely copies of Con's sources.

Pro thus has 17 effective sources. Of these, only 1 is a published study (from the discredited Dr. McHugh) and only 1 is a credible psychological/psychiatric organization (from the old, soon-to-be-updated version of the WHO's ICD).

Con has used at least 8 published studies or credible organizations, showing the brain structure of transsexuals and medical consensus view on transsexuality.

Vote Con.

REFERENCES

[27] http://rationalwiki.org... and https://en.wikipedia.org...
[28] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[29] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[30] http://www.wpath.org...
[31] http://www.who.int...
[32] http://psychiatricethics.com...
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Opulence 2 years ago
Opulence
BearWithMe, how can you know what she is like. You only joined 4 days ago "apparently".
Posted by BearWithMe 2 years ago
BearWithMe
Thought you were better than this Zarroette, you're a nice debater even if I don't agree, but that was just low.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Oh, look, it's Zarroette. I thought we didn't do the "you're a member of group X, your ideas are invalid" arguments? Oh, nope, the canard of Cultural Marxism rises yet again!
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
You're in the right here, Pro. You've got the time to do some quick research and find the information you need. Fuzzy's arguments are typical cultural marxist bullsh*t that can be debunked, but only if you're willing to look into the topic a bit. Hopefully, you're up for the challenge!
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
The resolution is worded such that all con needs to do to disaffirm it, is fail to change pro's mind.

I suggest refining it.
Posted by BootsWithDefer 2 years ago
BootsWithDefer
See, I don't understand Transgenders, I don't want to be in a relationship with one, but I dont think they are mentally ill, as much as misled and confused. I saw a documentary about a boy who believes he is a girl, is 11, and is getting hormone blockers COVERED BY INSURANCE to appear more feminine. This outrages me, because it is irreversible. A grown person deciding to do this is one thing, but a child who could be being forced by their parents is terrible. And people complain about religion...
No votes have been placed for this debate.