3rd wave feminism has made notable progress for civil rights

Again, I thank Con for the rebuttal and for taking the time with this debate. I asked Con to participate due to some comments regarding feminism which I believed to be poorly informed. I simply wished for Con to defend their assertions in an organized format. I appreciate Con's willingness to engage on this issue. Rebuttal: "3rd wave feminism didn't cause what you said it caused, it supported what you said it caused, therefore there's not even a reason to explore point A further" Con offers no sources to support this opinion, nor can he point out, using my sources, where this opinion is at all supported. "You didn't support your own claim (again) and now are twisting it into another claim (again) to maintain some form of integrity." Con has already admitted the BOP has been met. That being said, Con still offers no sources or quotations to indicate where I have "twisted" a claim. " Your own source defeats your claims that 3rd Wave had any real hand in Sex Positivism" Con is incorrect, and offers no quotations from the sources to support this opinion. The fact is, Sex Positivity is a tremendous aspect of third wave feminism, which joined together many more defined feminist schools of thought. Gayle Rubin (Rubin, 1984) summarizes the conflict over sex within feminism, between the 2nd and third waves: "...There have been two strains of feminist thought on the subject. One tendency has criticized the restrictions on women's sexual behavior and denounced the high costs imposed on women for being sexually active. This tradition of feminist sexual thought has called for a sexual liberation that would work for women as well as for men. " (1) "Also considered part of the third wave is sex-positivity, a celebration of sexuality as a positive aspect of life, with broader definitions of what sex means and what oppression and empowerment may imply in the context of sex. For example, many third-wave feminists have reconsidered the opposition to pornography and sex work of the second wave, and challenge existing beliefs that participants in pornography and sex work are always being exploited."(2) "This is again a shifting of the same arguments because it's an attempt to push ownership for Sex Positivism by 3rd Wave" Con claims that suggesting Sex Positivity in general influenced third wave feminism nullifies any civil rights advances the movement has created, which is not logical. If we operate under this logic, historians would say the French Revolution had no influence on the American Revolution, because it happened beforehand. They would say Thomas Payne had no hand in creating the structure of our Constitution, despite his tremendous philosophical influence on the authors. If one will look above, they can see that I haven not once claimed that Sex Positivity was a result of Third Wave feminism, only that the progress made toward that objective is owed in great part to the third wave feminism movement which adopted Sex Positive theory and brought it to the public eye. Blogs such as the below, illustrate this fact. "Sex-positivity is quite simple. It holds that there is really no wrong way to do human sexuality as long as all parties involved give their consent. The sex-positive movement is closely intertwined with (third wave) feminism because the oppression of sexualities which fall outside the normative (white, monogamous, and heterosexual) is a major tool of the patriarchy. "(3) "straight red herring." Not at all. Con suggests that a movement or designation can only exist once the terminology has been set in stone. The term Capitalism did not exist prior to Marx's writings, therefore, Con must believe America is not a Capitalist nation. Sex positive theory was codified into the greater Third Wave Feminist movement once that terminology was established, just as America became a "capitalist" nation when Marx coined the term. This is another example of the theory pre-dating the terminology. "Furthermore Pro starts off by attempting to assert that the Third Wave existed before the Third Wave " Just as Capitalism existed before "Capitalism". This is a simple correlation to make. "which is not equivalent to saying "Not All 2nd Wave agreed on matter X" which is just intellectually dishonest and a means to inject one's vantage point into any time period or situation." Con offers no sources to support the assumption that Third Wave feminism formed spontaneously, rather than transformed over time from positions which were not accepted by the mainstream 2nd wave. Con claims my argument uses the "Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent", because I assert that the theories which formed Third Wave Feminism had an impact on civil rights. Con claims this by misdefining the term: "If X supports concept A and A is a core of group B and then X is a member of group B." Con's example above is not the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. The actual fallacy is represented as "If A results in B, and B is present, that must mean A was the cause." EX. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich. (the true statement) Bill Gates is rich. (the true variable) Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. (the fallacy) Let's attribute this to Con's example: If a person pre-90's identified as a Feminist but supported Sex Positivism (the true statement) then they were actually a 3rd Wave Feminist. - (The true variable) *****Missing (The Fallacy) Con is missing the last half of the "fallacy", because they have misattributed it. (4) It would have been better represented as: If a Pre-90's person is Sex Positive, he/she is a Third wave feminist. (the true statement) So and so is a Third Wave Feminist. (The true variable) Therefore so and so is Sex Positive. (the fallacy) Not all third wave feminists are Sex Positive, but all Sex Positive people are Third Wave Feminists, at least in that regard (obviously not on every subject), whether they are aware or not. Just as America was a "Capitalist" nation, even before the term was coined. "Pro stated that third-wave feminism, in their opening, had a direct impact on the GBLTQ, specifically the T, and failed to prove it which was shown through yet another chronological error." Again, Con offers no sources or citations to support this statement, save for their own opinion. "Trans feminism"that is, transgender perspectives on feminism, or feminist perspectives on transgender issues"is one of many so-called "third-wave" feminisms. Its origins are closely linked with other feminist submovements"specifically, sex-positive feminism, postmodern/poststructuralist feminism, queer theory and intersectionality."(5) "3rd wave again absorbed rather than directly effected T" 1. In no way has anyone suggest trans feminism was influenced by the third wave. It influenced the creation of and was incorporated into the Third Wave, much like the Sex Positive movement. 2. This does not demonstrate that Third Wave trans feminists have not had a notable impact on civil rights. It can be seen that Trans feminism is a facet of the third wave, and as we have already established, Trans feminism has had a notable impact on civil rights. The wider discourse in academia is proof of that. (6)(7) Con again attempts to claim that a movement cannot be considered a movement until the terminology is created. This is the same flawed argument Con has based their entire rebuttal on. It has already been shown to be flawed. ACHIEVEMENTS: "not sufficient to prove any form of furthering or ownership by 3rd wave." Untrue. furthering - "(millennials) in general have a broader sexual repertoire, and are more likely to be satisfied with our sex lives than older people. We're less judgmental of kink, and less likely to stigmatize around sex." (8) "Ownership", again, has no place in social movements. MLK does not "own" pacifism, yet it was a tremendous boon to his contributions to civil rights movement. Con again admits the BOP has been met. Con states my claims are false, yet cannot demonstrate how. Con claims my sources are "terrible", yet cannot provide original sources to refute or disprove them. Con has shown poor conduct throughout the debate. Please vote Pro! SOURCES: 1. http://books.google.com...'s%20sexual&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false 2. Johnson, Merri Lisa, ed. (2002). Jane Sexes It Up: True Confessions of Feminist Desire. New York 3. http://thefeministanthropologist.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://www.temple.edu... 7. http://powderroom.jezebel.com... 8. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...