The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
IAlwaysWinDebates
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Transsexuals, ladyboys, transgenderists, etc. should be classified as "non-human animals"

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,117 times Debate No: 52639
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Transsexuals, ladyboys, transgenderists, cross-dressers, eunuchs and transvestites, hereinafter collectively known for convenience as "intersexuals", do not self-identify themselves with either human gender: that is to say; they do not consider themselves either male or female human beings and, since a human being is defined as a "man or woman of the species Homo sapiens" [1], that makes intersexuals non-human animals, doesn't it?

Yes, of course it does, and there's nothing immoral, much less illegal, about putting animals to work is there?

No, there isn't, and animals perform a lot of useful functions in our society, all in return for nothing more than food and shelter.

For example, we have guard dogs, racehorses, guide dogs for the blind, horse-drawn carriages and gundogs so why not guard ladyboys, race-eunuchs, guide cross-dressers for the blind, transvestite-drawn carriages and gun-transgernderists?

According to a recent BBC report, there are about two million intersexuals in India and they "live on the fringes of society, often in poverty, ostracised because of their gender identity. Most make a living by singing and dancing or by begging and prostitution."[2]

Surely the solution to India's intersexual problem is to export these poor creatures to the West where they can join dogs and horses to become productive and beneficial assets to human endeavours, or even just as cherished household pets?

Otherwise, enterprising companies in Europe and America could round-up home-grown intyersexuals and corral them into enclosures to be sold off to the highest bidder. These transactions would, of course, be subject to sales tax and would be a valuable extra revenue stream for the government.

However, this will only be possible if governments officially classify hermaphrodites as non-human animals, which I duly urge them to do.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
IAlwaysWinDebates

Con

One of the first points you made was that a human being defined as ""man or woman of the species Homo sapiens" [1], that makes intersexuals non-human animals, doesn't it?". I would also like to point out that humans are not the only species with intersexuals, some male horses have their genitals removed and they are called geldings. However, these horses are still allowed in horse races, but under your logic, these geldings no longer count as horses since they have no gender. But, geldings are allowed in horse races, the people don't care what gender the horse is or even if it happens to have a gender, they only care that it wins. Intersexuals can be just as successful as people that stick with their birth gender, and certainly not animals.

For your second point you said, "there's nothing immoral, much less illegal, about putting animals to work is there?" but intersexuals whether or not they have a gender or identify that they have a gender, still have human level intelligence. Even if they are no longer considered human beings, they are still sentient creatures, and should be respected and treated as such, not like the other animals such as fish and cows that do not have a theory of mind. You can say that intersexuals are no longer human, but you cannot deny their sentience. Therefore; if we're going to put these intersexuals to work as animals are it would be more akin to slavery than anything else. This would also coincide with another thing that you said: "sold off to the highest bidder", when I think of that I think of the slave markets of America, before the Civil War. I bet the slavery supporters of that time used similir arguments; "These transactions would, of course, be subject to sales tax and would be a valuable extra revenue stream for the government." Of course it would, but at what cost? The cost of ruining millions of lives around the world, I think that, that it too high of a price to pay for a little "sales tax" or should I say "Slaves Tax".

And thank you, good sir.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank IAlwaysWinDebates for accepting this debate and to respond to his comments as follows:

In this debate I think it is important to respect the wishes of intersexualists who do not wish to be classed as either male or female human beings.

Furthermore, I am not suggesting that an unisexualist who was born a male human should be prevented from dressing up in ladies' clothes and adopting the life of a woman, or even going the whole hog and deliberately mutilating its sexual organs.
However, being a member of the human race has responsibilities as well as rights.

For example, people can't just do what they like with their own bodies. Pregnant women cannot have an early-term abortion. Similarly, two consenting adults cannot strip off and have sex in a park full of families. Also, you are not allowed to urinate in the street (except in France).

If you do not take your responsibilities to seriously you will be removed from society and put in jail. Surely, unicyclists "under slavery" are better of than in prison?

Thank you.
IAlwaysWinDebates

Con

What you just said was agreeing with my side: " Furthermore, I am not suggesting that an unisexualist who was born a male human should be prevented from dressing up in ladies' clothes and adopting the life of a woman, or even going the whole hog and deliberately mutilating its sexual organs." Because what you are saying is that they have a right to their own bodies however slaves do not have a right to their own body's being that they are slaves. The rest of your "post" was simply saying; "However, being a member of the human race has responsibilities as well as rights." which goes against the topic; "Transsexuals, ladyboys, transgenderists, etc. should be classified as "non-human animals"", you admit that I am right which defeats the purpose of this debate.

The rest of your post, was saying your opinion on other topics, which would require another debate(s).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to give a thanks to some poeple just as folows:

IAlwaysLoseDebates : For telling me to accept it.
Gustav_Adolf_II : For helping me compose this.
And of course anyone who reads/votes on this debate.

Sources:
https://www.wikipedia.org...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
Human being: any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species.

So yeah, they are. being male or female has nothing to do with it.
Posted by IAlwaysWinDebates 2 years ago
IAlwaysWinDebates
@theOmniscient Just because they are, transsexuals, lady-boys, transgenderists doesn't make them stupid.
Posted by IAlwaysWinDebates 2 years ago
IAlwaysWinDebates
It'll be posted later today, just need to refine a couple of things, and take care of school stuff.
Posted by brian_eggleston 2 years ago
brian_eggleston
@ kbub...

Crikey! "Genderqueer", "genderfluid", "gender-ambigious"? This is even more complicated than I thought! Thanks for your comments, though, I really appreciate them.
Posted by IAlwaysWinDebates 2 years ago
IAlwaysWinDebates
I'll most likely post my argument sometime tomorrow, or maybe later tonight. Depends on when I get home etc.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Oh, and transgender persons usually identify as one gender or the other.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Also Brian, you are getting closer, but now I think you might still be getting confused between gender and sex. If a person has ambiguous sexual characteristics (such as genitalia), this person usually identifies themselves as intersex. If the person has an ambiguous gender identity (possibly related to sexual characteristics but not necessarily) this person usually identifies as "genderqueer," "genderfluid," or "gender-ambiguous." Eunuchs usually do not change their gender, and are thus not genderqueer. Transvestites is a crass word for transgender. Cross-dressers perform a different gender temporarily but do not usually identify as that gender generally, and obviously do not necessary have a change in sexual characteristics for their performance. It is polite to call these persons by their performed gender during their performance and their usual gender outside their performance (when they've dressed per their usual habits).

I love how your debate allows us to question not only how we understand gender and sex, but also humanity. It brings to light issues of the treatment of both the marginalized human and the marginalized nonhuman, and connects their struggles.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Oh, c'mon people! This is a satirical debate. I <3 satirical debates.
Posted by Jevinigh 2 years ago
Jevinigh
I thought about accepting this but the topic seems contrived and trolling more than an honest debate and than I would have spent an entire round telling you what a backwards thinking Savage you are and how it amuses me that people that spout crap on the garbage-level of eugenics are still considered functioning members of our society is amusing to me. It does take all sorts I guess but it scares me that your Eugenics-level garbage bin s still allowed to vote.
Posted by brian_eggleston 2 years ago
brian_eggleston
Humans are not vegetables or minerals, thay are animals...
No votes have been placed for this debate.