The Instigator
Infernape_Rox_77
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Quesadillas
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There are only TWO genders

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 637 times Debate No: 112027
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Infernape_Rox_77

Pro

There are only two genders, for, it is scientifically impossible for there to be more due to the lack of variety of human genitalia to match the number of given genders.
Quesadillas

Con

This debate is a pretty easy decision. As the framer, and instigator of the debate Pro has the burden of proof to show that the resolution is true beyond the shadow of a doubt. At the point that they are unable to meet this burden, they lose. If I can create any doubt in the resolution, I win.

Pro states,
"There are only two genders,..."

This is pro's claim. Without a warrant, or piece of evidence this nothing. This is not an argument, it is a premise from which an argument may be established.

Pro continues,
"for, it is scientifically impossible for there to be more due to the lack of variety of human genitalia to match the number of given genders."

First, intersex people exist[1]. Not everyone's genitals are just a penis or vagina. For anyone to make this claim shows a dire ignorance of human anatomy. While one may look at a ciswoman's external genitalia and see a vagina, labia, and clitoris, what they don't see are the internal sex organs that are associated with genitalia. There are people who are born with what appears to be a clitoris, but no vaginal opening. There are people who are born with what appears to be a typical vagina, but may have testes inside rather than a uterus. There are people who are born with no clear genitalia at all, but may grow a penis and testicles later on in life[2]. The number of possible permutations goes on. Human biology is complicated, and to try and reduce it to two set of genitalia is beyond silly. Not everyone's genitals look the way you might think they do. You can actually vote Neg right here; pro makes a weak claim, fails to warrant it, and what warrant they do attempts is easily refuted. However, I still have space and time, and I choose to spend it explaining just why this position is so strange to me.

Second, gender and sex are different things. In the paragraph above, I use the term 'ciswoman'. This term refers to someone who was assigned female at birth (AFAB), and agrees with this gender designation later on in life. A cisman is one who was assigned male at birth (AMAB) and agrees with the designation. Someone who is a traswoman was AMAB, later disagreed with that designation, and transitioned into being a woman. someone who is a transman was AFAB, later disagreed with that designation and transitioned into being a man. It's important to hear the lived experiences of actual trans people as this process isn't as cut-and-dry for all of them; a lot of intersex people have stories about going back and forth in their gender identity before coming to terms with it. What's important to remember however, is that transmen and transwomen are still men and women the same as cismen and ciswomen are; the only difference is whether or not they agreed with the gender they were assigned at birth, or whether they had to transition to the gender the better identify as. Gender identity is complicated and personal, and people don't always adopt binary gender identities (man/woman). Some people decide that they feel like a woman some days, and like a man other days[3]; some people decide that they don't feel like a man or a woman, or that the delineation between the two is arbitrary[4]. There are so many gender identities beyond this that I'm not going cover here, but I hope this serves as a good starting point towards understanding why gender and sex are different things, and why gender is framed a broadly as it is

Finally, Gender is a social construct[5], not soley a matter of biology. Biology can and often does influence gender identity, but that it doesn't necessarily have to. For instance, if someone is AMAB, and grows up seeing their body in a way that is traditionally masculine, that can influence their gender identity as a cisman. Some AFABs are born with a condition called PCOS[6] which alters their homones and affects the way that their primary and secondary sexual characteristics are expressed. This can lead to a lot of people with PCOS identifying as transmen, nonbinary, or other gender because of how their body's hormones effect them. However, we also largely experience gender based on the social cues we are given to understand it. Despite what some people may thing, transgendered people aren't new, they have existed across different time periods and cultures for as long as people have been around. In Mexico's Zapotec culture, some people identify as being Muxe[7]. Muxe are neither men nor women, but third gender entirely. Native Americans have historically recognized 5 common genders[8], people in India recognize the Hijra[9] who play an important role in Hindu spiritual traditions.

In conclusion, there are a lot more than two genders. The assumption that there is only one is entirely unfounded, and ignorant of biology, history and sociology. As a final under note, one's masculinity or femininity does not determine their gender any more than their genitals do. One can identify as a woman and have short hair and big muscles, or one may identify as a man wear dresses and heels. The existance and legitimacy of gender roles is an entirely different can of worms.

Vote Con!

[1] http://www.isna.org...
[2] http://www.bbc.com...
[3] https://www.cnn.com...
[4] http://www.transmediawatch.org...
[5] http://www.personal.psu.edu...
[6] https://www.webmd.com...
[7] https://www.theguardian.com...
[8] https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com...
[9] https://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Infernape_Rox_77 2 years ago
Infernape_Rox_77
ACTUALLY, gender and sex are the same thing, gender is NOT a social construct! It's ridiculous to say that gender is a social construct! If you really want gender (or something) to be a social construct then make a NEW WORD, the word "gender" has been around for a long time and you idiots who think that it's a social construct are literally trying to change its meaning, what the heck?

Now, if you guys made a new word or phrase like "gender-think" or something like that, there can be as many as those as you want but "gender" has always and WILL ALWAYS be a biological component. My first argument was quite bad... I hadn't researched my topic sufficiently. Still, with my newfound information, an "intersex" person almost ALWAYS has an obvious, outward appearing gender. Their gonads might be messed up, but if you look at them from the outside, they carry obvious male/female traits, such as muscle mass, breast devellopment, and hip shape. Im honestly confused as to how you people who believe there are 94,859,374,682 genders (I made that number up for comic relief, don't think too much of it) say "Gender is a social construct" that argument is absolutely obliterated because back in the 14th century (this is when Merriam Webster says the word gender was made) gender meant "penis or vagina" that was it.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Wizofoz// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments and Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pros only argument conflated gender with sex. Con pointed out this error, and made a solid argument with relevant citations.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. While these may be essential parts of the decision, the voter is required to explain why Pro has the burden of proof in order to have this pass moderation. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess what makes Con"s sources "relevant".
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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