This House Believes That the No Difference Theory is correct

What does this mean, though? I will elucidate my position through this debate. Firstly, what does it mean to be male and female? This sounds obvious – to be a man is to have a penis, and to be a woman is to have a vagina. However, how true is this really? In Balkan states, there are three genders: men women and virgins, the latter being defined as an intact hymen, for example. Moreover, where do we place transsexuals? Transvestites? Men ‘trapped in women’s bodies’? All these are massively important, as Difference Theory claims these biological differences are the substantially defining the relationships we have with our children. By contrast, No Difference Theory claims that it is institutions of culture and society that make the substantially defining influence with child-rearing. Now, I am going define some terms here. Androgyny argues people have both male and female virtues naturally. For example, men can be caring, loving, merciful, fearful and otherwise effeminate and women can be strong, aggressive, tyrannical, influential and otherwise masculine. Being masculine or feminine, then, is just fitting in a heteronormative norms (norms where virtues fit in with a biological gender). Biology has nothing to do with it. By corollary, then, two men can raise a child just as easily as a woman and a man. There is no necessary difference between a heterosexual and homosexual couple in child-rearing, it depends wholly on their balance of virtues. Yes, having two Jason-Statham-in-Expendables as parents will probably be worse than having average parents, but the reason is having too masculine virtues in the home. Female virtues of love and care are needed to raise a child, but these virtues are not linked necessarily to biology. “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman”[i] to summarise the position. By contrast, Essentialism argues that biology has a defining factor in your virtues when it comes to raising a child. Men are necessarily having the characteristics of being aggressive, strong, powerful, and influential. Or, “men are made for screwing”, to quote feminist essentialists[ii]. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics This debate can easily get bogged down in statistics, so I wish to cover them now: they mean nothing. Statistics show a correlation between two things. The causation is analysis of the evidence. Let’s suppose (though there is of course much dispute in recent years on the evidential support of this) that there is conclusive evidence that women are better at taking care of children than men. We can take this one of two ways – one, we can take this the essentialist route and say women rear children better due to their biology, or women culturally are better at taking care of children. Women are put into a social role of child-rearing, trained and conditioned at a young age to accept this as their emancipation[iii]. This is supported by the fact that the last generations have been enforced with stereotyping abhorrent to us now[iv], telling women to be subservient to their husbands[v]. “For a mother the project of raising a boy is the most fulfilling project she can hope for. ”[vi] Women have been made child-rearers by culture, not by biology. Statistics in fact would be more shocking if they were massively against women as child-rearers rather than not. The skill of Child-rearing Is child-rearing a skill? I’d say so. The existence of babysitters tells us that it is something you can become adept at. It is something which we can be either an idiot at, or a genius at. But how does this affect androgyny? Simple: “One is not born a genius, one becomes a genius; and the feminine situation has up to the present rendered [men child-rearing] practically impossible”[vii]. There is no reason outside of culture that men can be bad at child-rearing: the existence of a penis does not stop men from child-rearing, nor does the vagina – unless there are some techniques of babysitting that I’m not privy to – make you better at child-rearing. To sum up the point: it is your practice at the skill and virtues that makes you a good mother or father, such as love, care, kindness, and help, not your arbitrary gender, that makes a difference. The ‘ought’ side of the equation Of course, this debate can be taken as a normative one. As such, I am also going to argue that androgyny is the best aim for society over an acceptance of essentialism. I shall argue this further in the second round, but I shall cover the most powerful argument here first. The true acceptance of freedom “Freedom is fragile and must be protected”[viii] expresses the view of most of us modern thinkers. If people are restrained into roles and stereotypes and forced to fulfil them, or at least coerced and conditioned, then their freedom is of course infringed if not insulted. “All oppression creates a state of war. And this is no exception. ”[ix] Yet “women were given the vote but denied sexual freedom. In the final analysis, women aren't really free”[x]. Only when we say that there are not any fixed roles to biology, but instead when we accept that men and women can have any role in society they are able to do that we are truly free. In other words, an acceptance of androgyny is akin to an acceptance of freedom and liberty. Saying only heterosexual couples can raise children is an enforcement of false heteronormative linking of values to gender. Saying heterosexual couples are ‘designed’ to rear children has very little difference to saying blacks are ‘designed’ to be slaves and jews are ‘designed’ to be evil. However, the major case here is this: the liberation of gender roles is needed for freedom to truly exist. The step towards Liberalism Androgyny is the only step towards a truly free system. By forcing only heterosexual couples to be able to rear children, or even saying that we are harming children by letting non-heterosexual couples rear them, requires a massive burgeoning government to rule our private lives. I use liberal here in the traditional sense of a small government not telling us how to live our private lives. If the government rules us on whether we are allowed to have children or not, we become part of a massive automaton system devaluing human life, and this is the only way of enforcing my opponent’s essentialist system. We must realise that essentialism, claiming biology dictates our ability to raise children, necessarily concludes that if we want children to grow up well, then we must force homosexual couples to not have children, and dictate their lives. Androgyny accepts that we can want different things, we can be different people, and biology does not rule our lives. Instead, androgyny says homosexual couples, given they are not abusive or uncaring, can raise children successfully. To conclude, does androgyny not just seem naturally correct? That it is actually whether you are an abusive or uncaring parent that makes the difference, not whether your parents have a penis and vagina between them? Does the latter not seem somewhat arbitrary? Androgyny recognises female virtues make women better at raising children. With that, I’ll pass over to my opponent for his opening argument. [i] De Beauvoir, The Second Sex Childhood [ii] Valerie Solana, The S. C. U. M Manifesto [iii] . http://www.csustan.edu... [iv] . http://images4.fanpop.com... [v] . http://zeldalily.com... [vi] Andrea Dworkin, The Sexual Politics of Fear and Courage [vii] De Beauvoir, Since the French Revolution: the Job and the Vote [viii] Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch [ix] De Beauvoir, The Second Sex Conclusion [x] Nat Lehrman, Playboy Jan. 1972 ed. (interview with Germaine Greer)