The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The Gender Spectrum is nonsensical

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Doffy has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 965 times Debate No: 94391
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I have not yet had a proper debate on this topic. I assume that groups that believe in the Gender Spectrum have atleast some people who have proper and logical arguments to support this.

If gender is a spectrum, i.e. a continuum between two extremes, then everyone would be "Non-binary". Which would make the concept of a "Gender spectrum" redundant and meaningless.

Round 1: Greetings and acceptance; opening.

Round 2: Arguments, rebuttals

Round 3: Rebuttals and closing.


Hello, Doffy, thank you for this debate. I accept the challenge, and would like to add that I personally am not a big fan of the gender spectrum, but as a bit of a brain exercise am accepting the debate anyway. That being said, I do find merit in the general idea of a gender spectrum, but first the distinction must be made between gender and sex.

Gender- the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. [1]
Sex- the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. [1]

From here I'd like to start our debate by asking my opponent a simple question.

Suppose that there are three members of the same sex (we'll go with male). we can call them Bob, Joe, and Tom. Is it possible that Bob is more masculine than Joe, and Joe is more masculine than Tom? Likewise, is it possible that Tom is more feminine than Joe, and Joe more feminine than Bob?

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate.

To answer your question, I say no, a man who possesses less masculine traits does not really mean that he possesses more feminine traits; same thing with feminine traits. It could be that there could be certain intensities of a masculine/feminine personality.

If a masculine personality would be related to strength and dominant, someone who is slightly weaker and less aggressive than another does not mean that the weaker individual is more feminine.


Thanks, Doffy.

In Round 2, Pro concedes a key point in this debate that is very important when deciding the victor.

"... a man who possesses less masculine traits does not really mean that he possesses more feminine traits; same thing with feminine traits. It could be that there could be certain intensities of a masculine/feminine personality."

This is exactly what the gender spectrum is about. Just because a man possesses more masculine traits doesn't make him less feminine than another man. However, it does make him more masculine. Therefore, there is some sort of disparity in masculinity levels in males, meaning some can be hyper-masculine, while others are very non-masculine.

Men can also be feminine, as they may enjoy things that society has deemed more likely to be associated with females. The same male that can be hyper-masculine can also enjoy things such as wearing makeup, fashion, and "chick flicks." These are all things associated more often with the female sex, but remember, sex and gender are different.

Therefore, as people can be more masculine/feminine than one another, a gender spectrum exists. However, I'd actually argue that two exist independent of one another. Though increased masculinity would likely correspond with decreased femininity and vice versa, an individual can be both hyper-masculine and hyper-feminine.

s://; alt="" />

Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by C_e_e 2 years ago
I've enjoyed reading what I have so far of this debate. I look forward to reading Round 3. I wanted to comment that the working premise, as demonstrated in the definitions posted in Round 1, is that society influences the roles of its members; under this theory, the source from which norms perpetuate is society. I wanted to posit a different theory -- the premise that biology could influence the norms seen in society. I recall watching animal documentaries as a child. The male animals would fight more often. The females would be commonly found nursing the young. How would it sound to suggest that animals have complex social structures that instill gender norms? It seems more likely that nature is influencing the norms. And, it is not that exceptions cannot be found even with animals. But, to cite the exceptions, as if to say the norms are unreliable, is to give undue weight to the exceptions.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.