The Instigator
White_Power
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Throwback
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Why gender is a social construct

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...
Throwback
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 792 times Debate No: 95056
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

White_Power

Pro

gender is a social construct cuse we are told when we are first born by a dude what gender but if he didnt tell us that we woudnt have a gender its only cuse he told us that gender that we are that gender
i myself am an Androgenic masculine female attracted hermophro female and i am standing up against sexism and male patrechy
Throwback

Con

I accept the debate offered by my opponent and I take the Con position, that being, gender is not a social construct.

Pro opens the debate in round #1 with the following:

"gender is a social construct cuse we are told when we are first born by a dude what gender but if he didnt tell us that we woudnt have a gender its only cuse he told us that gender that we are that gender
i myself am an Androgenic masculine female attracted hermophro female and i am standing up against sexism and male patrechy"

Gender defined:
1a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical formsb : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclassc : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass
2a : sex b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex (1)
Argument
Etymology of "gender": The term "gender" has been in use to denote sex since the late 14th century, and has become more commonly so recently, as the term "sex" took on a meaning less regarding one"s genitalia and became more commonly used to reference the sex act. (2). In general use, gender and sex have become synonymous in referring to males and females.
Con disagrees with the claim. The proposition that, we are told what our gender is after birth is proof that it is a social construct, is simply not the case. The physicians and other medical staff make a determination of the gender of a newborn based on physical characteristics, i.e., genitalia, which are unique to a given gender. They do not decide and assign gender. They recognize what is. Simply denying the obvious gender of a newborn does not change the fact of it. Pro goes on to claim that if we were not told our gender our gender would not exist. We know this is not the case. Everyone is aware that the gender of a child is already factual prior to the pronouncement by medical staff. A child does not enter the world without gender and suddenly develop genitalia in accordance to the spoken decree of the attendees. If pro insists on going deeper into the substance of the individual, those gender differences are based on the 23rd pair of chromosomes in humans, with females having 2 X chromosomes and males having an X and a Y chromosome in the 23rd pair. (3) (4)

The last sentence of Pro"s Round #1 argument is not disputed. Con would point however to Pro"s use of female in the description of herself.

Con finds Pro"s argument that gender is an arbitrary assignment by a male at birth as part of an anti female world preposterous and wholly without merit. Con"s argument is refuted. Gender is not a social construct.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.etymonline.com...
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
https://www.britannica.com...
Debate Round No. 1
White_Power

Pro

Ure just a sexist mysoginistic pig
Throwback

Con

As Pro has offered nothing of substance in Round #2, Con stands on the argument and rebuttal of Round #1. The allegation made by Pro against Con are unsubstantiated, and in any event, have no bearing on the weight of the argument presented.
Debate Round No. 2
White_Power

Pro

Gender" is an idea that is based on what we socially believe. Am I a woman because when I was a kid my female mother wanted me to play with dolls and not GI Joes? Of course, these social cues are what mainly divides men from women. Men are supposed to be tough because society made them that way. Women are weak because society made them that way. We're not born this way, we are made this way.

Anthropologists that have studied cultures around the world know that a lot of the traditional gender roles we see in the west are just products of culture and not necessarily innate. For the most part, culture forces people into behaving in certain ways. That said, almost all cultures do end up having gender roles that, whatever they are, align with physical sex in some way.
Throwback

Con

I thank Pro for participation in this debate. I welcome the opportunity to expand in knowledge through research on various topics and to learn from others. This debate is not about the superiority of men or women. No such relationship is admitted by Con.

As Con has shown from sources on the etymology of "gender", from its origin to its current usage, the term is commonly applied to the physical sex of an individual. Pro has not cited any sources to the contrary.

Pro argues without documentation that men are not born stronger than women. This argument is demonstrably false. Of course, we do not argue from the specific to the general, which is a logical fallacy. We do not argue since one particular woman is stronger than one particular man, the axiom does not hold any longer that men are physically more powerful. There are numerous fitness and medical sources which attest to the fact of men having greater strength. (1)(2)(3)

This is not a social construct. It is a genetic fact of gender. Pro also states without supporting evidence that anthropological study has produced the knowledge that gender roles (not to be confused with "gender") are cultural. However this, also, is documented to be incorrect, that males and females have differing roles due to differing methods of processing information. (4)

As to the original, contextual meaning of the word "gender" in this debate: The context was clearly related to physical attributes, with Pro using their unusual physical situation setting the context and as shown, the two terms, sex and gender, are used interchangeably in society. If Pro had wanted to debate solely the cultural roles of males and females, Con believes the result would have been the same. As Pro did not narrow it, either by definition, or by debating "Gender Roles Are a Social Construct", there is no reason to limit the debate to part of the meaning of gender.

It is worth noting that all 4 sources used in this round, from fitness to government to medical, use gender and sex interchangeably.

Con has proven that both cultural and physical differences within the genders are not social constructs, but are genetic in nature.

http://www.livestrong.com...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.shapefit.com...
http://www.cerebromente.org.br...
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Throwback 1 year ago
Throwback
Good to see votes are actually being reviewed for valid RFD...
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Anthony_Moore// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Dude

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TheShaun// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro used only opinions, provided no citations, made grammatical errors, wasted a round on insults, and argued against something already scientifically proven. Con stated facts, provided citations, used proper grammar, stayed on topic, and defended an already proven scientific fact.

[*Reason for removal*] For every category awarded, the voter is required to support their assessment with specifics from the debate. These assessments are devoid of any specifics that apply to the debate, and as such, this RFD is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: epidexipteryx// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con had overall better conduct, arguments and reasoning. While the opponent just shouted insults and made claims without supporting evidence, Con proved that gender is not a social construct but stems naturally from genetic origins.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G. (2) Conduct, arguments and sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to provide specific reasons why these points should be awarded, referencing instances from the debate. If someone "shouted insults", it should be clear what those insults were. If Con proved something true, explain how, and explain why their supporting evidence was reliable and effective.
***********************************************************************
Posted by FrostyCold 1 year ago
FrostyCold
Same... It seems so obvious now >.<
Posted by Throwback 1 year ago
Throwback
If that's even true. I reread the instigation after you said that. I can't believe I didn't see it's a troll.
Posted by FrostyCold 1 year ago
FrostyCold
He's 42 years old. Just wow.
Posted by Throwback 1 year ago
Throwback
I think you're right about pro
Posted by FrostyCold 1 year ago
FrostyCold
As entertaining as this is. I think the pro is a troll... using satire to mock hmm.
Posted by FrostyCold 1 year ago
FrostyCold
You linked me to an article. That didn't actually link to a study. *facepalm*

As much as I'd like to show how idiotic you so called facts are. Its off topic we're talking not about transgender but about intersex if you bother reading what the pro says.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
White_PowerThrowbackTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate looks at two opposing constructs. PRO: gender being a social construct, but she needed to be more specific in her opening contention. CON points out in R3, that she implied physical characteristics. Her intent was, gender/sex roles are a social construct, but this isn?t clear until R3. CON seizes the biological descriptors for his argument and aptly, with cites for substantiation, rebuts PRO?s assertions that men are not born stronger than women, gender roles are based on information processing and gender/sex are genetically based. Sources to CON due to weigh in substantiation of his arguments. Conduct CON, PRO name calls, S&G ties both had readable arguments.