The Instigator
MAGA27
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WrickItRalph
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Being transgender is not normal

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: 3/15/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,306 times Debate No: 120842
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (48)
Votes (0)

 

MAGA27

Pro

Being transgender is a mental illness recognized by the american psychiatric association. It is not normal for someone to think they are a gender they are not.
WrickItRalph

Con

You're making an argument from authority. Doctors used to think that women complaining was a disease too. Even groups of Doctors can be wrong.

If you're going to trans people are mentally ill, Then you have to say that civil war actors, Cosplayers, And Christians are all mentally ill, Because they all play a role in their heads that's not true. Mentally ill means that they are not capable of functioning in society. They're not ill just because they don't agree with your prejudice way of thinking.
Debate Round No. 1
MAGA27

Pro

What I meant was that chopping off one of your genitals and adding another one, Is NOT normal. Thinking you are different gender is different than believing in god, Being a movie actor, And wearing a costume.

Saying that you are a gender you"re not is not normal nor true. I can say I am a dog, But I"m still human.

Also, Let"s not put religion into this, Because I"m Christian, And this isn"t a debate about god.
WrickItRalph

Con

You said "What I meant was that chopping off one of your genitals and adding another one"

That's a strawman. Transgenderism has nothing to do with gender confirmation surgeries. While I personally don't like those surgeries, The fact is that it is their body and they can do what they want with it if they're adults. Same goes for circumcision, IF they're adults.

You said " Thinking you are different gender is different than believing in god, Being a movie actor, And wearing a costume. "

They're not congruent, But they're analogous because they're all examples of people both doing something that seems irrational to other people and being sane at the same time. If you want to make transgenderism an illness because it's not "normal" then you have to make all abnormal behaviors mental illnesses. That's why your argument ultimately fails.

You said "Saying that you are a gender you're not is not normal nor true"

You can't prove it's not normal unless you're a mind reader and it doesn't matter if it's true or not. At the most, It would only make them a liar. You can't argue for societal norms in this case, Because we're not talking about an observable behavior. We're talking about the way people feel and you cannot develop a norm for feelings, Because to do so you would have to prove what the whole world feels and you can't do that.

You said "Also, Let"s not put religion into this, Because I"m Christian, And this isn"t a debate about god"

I was using it as an analogy, Which is my right. I have a standing policy that I don't tell people what kind of arguments they can present and they can't tell me either. If you think a comment I make is fallacious, Then disprove the logic in it. But I refuse to be told what kind of evidence that I'm allowed to present. I made no comment about Christianity that was not directly related to my argument. I simply stated that Christians don't get called insane for their irrational beliefs. That's a fact.

So now that I've addressed your main points. I would like to revisit the crux of my argument. Which is:

1) Norms cannot be established for thoughts and feelings.

2) Thoughts and Feelings do not make you mentally ill.

1) In order to say that something is normal, There must be a norm to check it against. Without such a norm, No behavior can be quantified in this manner. Therefore, You must establish a societal norm in contrast to transgenderism to claim it's supposed abnormality. You cannot use behavior as a norm, Because transgenderism is not necessarily attributed to any behavior. Rather, It's the way you think and feel about your gender. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. We could say that it used to be normal that the earth was flat, But the earth is not flat. This logic shows that truth is irrelevant to the normality of something.

2) This point comes up because you have conflate normality with sanity. Now you can separate them if you want, But I'm addressing both just in case you try to pull a fast one. So we have to ask ourselves, What makes you mentally ill? Generally speaking, It's when your state of mind causes you to cause harm to those around you. Trans people are not causing anyone any harm, So you can't say they're mentally ill on that grounds. You can't say that they harm themselves, Because the surgeries they get are legally recognized and no different than a circumcision. You can't say that the suicides make them mentally ill because of transgenderism, Because the same doctors that you appeal to say that the suicides are caused either by depression or body dysphoria and neither of those things are transgenderism. The only standard that you have really presented thus far is the fact that they don't comport with the subjective societal norm that you have falsely posited. So there is no reason to consider them mentally ill. I'm also suspicious about your claims that doctors agree with you. Do you have data? Because as far as I know, They attribute the mental illness to body dysphoria, Which is not transgenderism.

"I would like to respond, But I'm still waiting to hear the argument" -- Christopher Hitchens.
Debate Round No. 2
MAGA27

Pro

MAGA27 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MAGA27

Pro

MAGA27 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
billsands
Nothing is normal, Everything is normal, I'm not normal i am exceptional
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Same. I was just about to say that we should just agree to disagree, Lol.
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
Fair enough, I'm just going to concede because I see no point in continuing this in the comments.

I'm not overtly pedantic, But I prefer formal and structured debates.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
It would prove my position because you can't call something normal without a norm. I've shown that it is not possible to form a norm. Therefore, This particular thing cannot be called normal or abnormal.
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
Apologies, I meant to type: it wouldn't prove your position, It would prove normality.
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
I'm not exactly certain why I chose to use this form of argumentation as it isn't my speciality, But regardless here is my response:

Right, But if this is your stance you couldn't reasonably refute either of the diametric positions. Even if you could, It wouldn't then prove your position or the opposite of what you're disproving. In regards to being 'agnostic, ' it's either normal or it's not.

"Agrippa's trilemma is s formal logical proof. It's demonstrated using propositional logic. I named the three methods. I'm not sure what you want from me. Do you know a fourth way of justification that I'm now aware of? Because you'd be the first person in history to find it. "

We're on a site devoted to dialectic -- which is a form of justification. You may be utilizing the philosophical lexicon in a way I'm not aware of, But that is my stance. Likewise, If I were to appeal to science I wouldn't --logically-- be caught in this as far as I'm aware.

This is, Of course, Assuming you can justify the trilemma without disproving it - which you can't.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
No, It doesn't go both ways because I'm not claiming that I can form a norm. I'm being agnostic about it and saying that we can't know what normal is on this particular thing.
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
i only ask for justification because it's one of few arguments effective enough to refute itself

"Oh no, You're not slipping out of this one. The whole reason you brought this up was because you said you were justified that to say that trans people were not normal. My counter was that you can't establish norms because you have no way of knowing what somebody believes. Your counter was that they act on their beliefs. Since you've just admitted that trans belief is not axiomatic itself, That means they don't have to act on it, Therefore you can't know how many people believe it, Therefore you can't establish a norm for it. Checkmate. "

my doctor prescribed sleeping meds and am going to sleep in like 30 seconds. You argument goes both ways, You can't affirm how many people do not act on their belief - for all you know it oculd be 0. Feel free to challenge me on this topic, I doubt ill remember this later if you don't.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Agrippa's trilemma is s formal logical proof. It's demonstrated using propositional logic. I named the three methods. I'm not sure what you want from me. Do you know a fourth way of justification that I'm now aware of? Because you'd be the first person in history to find it.

You said:
"They wouldn't be required to act on the belief of transgenderism specifically. My point is that it's still there and still behind the belief "

Oh no, You're not slipping out of this one. The whole reason you brought this up was because you said you were justified that to say that trans people were not normal. My counter was that you can't establish norms because you have no way of knowing what somebody believes. Your counter was that they act on their beliefs. Since you've just admitted that trans belief is not axiomatic itself, That means they don't have to act on it, Therefore you can't know how many people believe it, Therefore you can't establish a norm for it. Checkmate.
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
If you were curious, My profile picture is a painting called "isle of the dead, " it inspired a music piece I was fond of.

en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Isle_of_the_Dead_(painting) - painting

youtube. Com/watch? V=dbbtmskCRUY - symphonic poem
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.