On balance, gender is more nature than nurture.

Thank you.First, let me address Pro's defense, then I will move on to his refutations of my case points.Pro's case #1Again, Pro's first contention is that gender roles as distinct from sex arose from the differences in behavior that manifest from the latter. Gender roles once included the expectation that males were part of the workforce and females provided domestic care. In 1890, women's labor participation was at an average of 20% with married or domesticated women only showing between 5-11% of labor participation. Today, this same class of women now work in about 60% of the workforce. (1)This is a distinct and notable case in which gender roles - that of the domestic woman - undergoes arbitrary change, and is caused exclusively by societal pressure - the women's civil rights and progressive movement during the early 20th century. (2)Of course, gender norms differ across cultures. Consider the typical matriarchal society, gender norms are swapped. Females become more attuned with the gender roles that we typically attribute to males and vice verse.This is evidence that gender roles are arbitrary and locally confined to culture.Even across species, the typical male/female gender role dynamic differ vastly. Several species, including many fishes, amphibian and some birds offer prime examples of the gender role reversal. (3)My favorite among these is the emperor penguin. After the female produces the egg, she leaves, giving the egg to the male. The male then sits on the egg, keeping it warm from the freezing conditions for four months. During those four months, the female has hunted and gathered food for herself and her mate, who fasts for the same four month period. The two penguins, who are able to recognize each other from their specific mating calls, then contribute to child-rearing together. (4)Gender roles are inconsistent with actual sex. It's true that Pro agrees that sex does not define gender, but it's hard to see that when he continues to say that the features of biological sex (i.e. penises on males, vaginas on females) are the defining influence on gender and gender roles. So while he agrees that sex doesn't define gender, he contrarily refuses to accept the implications of his agreement.One thing that Pro notes is that I do not show that biological sex is a taught distinction. However, the fact remains that it is. while there are some features to biological sexes, such as the female's distinct ability to bear children, the denomination and attribution of this feature specifically as 'female' is distinctly human. So yes, biological sex - male and female - are concepts taught to us. Any biology course or book which asserts any characteristics to be male or female is stark evidence of the pure societal influence that exists here. My refutation stands.So yeah, that's my response to Pro's defense on his first contention, and I have successfully shown that it fails due to inconsistency of gender roles across cultures and species. If Pro somehow manages to show that gender roles aren't inconsistent, then he will have to contend with the fact that biological distinctions are taught. I believe he will be able to do neither.This inconsistency of the roles of gender and its arbitrary denomination further exacerbates the resolution in my favor as it directly shows that gender, as distinct from biological sex, is mostly defined by the society in which they arise. If pro cannot defend against this refutation, he not only cedes the legitimacy of his arguments, but he also completely and utterly cedes all the text of my first contention in addition to the entirety of the debate.Pro's Case #2This contention is based on the influence off biological sex to gender. While I didn't specifically address this case, my first contention itself negates it because as I stated in my previous round, this case is severely undermined by the fact that the distinctions of biological sex are arbitrarily denominated by humans. Sex is a human concept. I repeat. Sex, the specific concept of 'male' and 'female', are distinctly human-taught, which is the epitome of nurture.Pro's Case #3On gender fluidity and relevance, Pro's defense is mostly semantics. Regardless of the definitions, it still stands that definitions of words are invented by people. It's not that gender is 'losing relevance', it is more that it is being redefined. Pro provides no solid logical link from transgenderism to some falling relevance of gender, as he seems to be trying to sell. On the other hand, the very core of transgenderism is to indentify as the opposite sex to your birth sex. The fact that this identification exists shows that the conclusion I draw from transgenderism - that gender is being redefined, has better argumentative and empirical support than Pro's conclusion - that gender is losing relevance.In short, using the same data that Pro presents, I draw a separate conclusion. If Pro cannot show that his conclusion is more solid or even relevant, then this particular contention is meaningless.Those are my rebuttals. Now for my defense. Defense 1: Sex is a Human ConceptMy point in this case is that the distinctions of sexual characteristics are arbitrarily denominated. This point is a self-evident truth. I do not contend the definitions of biological sex. However, biological sex doesn't define gender. The use of its attributes to define gender thus lacks a solid defining link. In other words, gender's relevance to biological sex is arbitrary and thus societally defined. Therefore, if this argument stands, then I will have successfully shown not only that gender is societally, but that even the distinctions of sex itself is based on nurture - taught from our environment.Because logic.Pro's refutation, his mention of specific features such as the female vagina, does not actually address my argument.Defense 2: Gender is a Social ConceptMy argument here is that without specific environments teaching a person how to distinguish and denominate people into specific categories of sexes, the idea that anyone can be 'male' or 'female' simply does not exist. Therefore it must've been taught. Think of it this way: why did gender originate as a binary? Why not a tertiary.. or a quaternary(5)? At some point we said: "Here's the cutoff. Penis + testicles = male. Vagina + ovarian glands = female. It's simplistic. It's easy. Wham. Done. There are people born with parts of both? Well let's just make our lives easier and pretend they don't exist." As is the case with all forms of categorization, these are human assertions. There is no objective reason why these denominations hold true.I will go ahead and address the only facet of Pro's refutation that I think is relevant: "The fact that the word must be taught in order to be understood does NOT mean that the concept behind the word is societal."However, a thing's being taught is the very core of the concept of nurture and societal influence. It is what defines nurture. The statement is a clear-cut case of a false assertion.Also, his examples don't actually address the point I'm making.Defense 3: A weeaboo is a weeaboo is a weeabooDo you, in the deepest corners of your hearts, truly believe that it is acceptable to allow a weeaboo to win a debate?A weeaboo.Really?Honorable judges. I pray you know to make the right choice.*winkFootnotes and Sources"(1) http://3.bp.blogspot.com...(2) http://www.ehow.com...(3) http://www.nwf.org...(4) http://www.antarctica.gov.au...;(5) Yes. I know these off the top of my head. Oh god the misuse of numerical lexicon.. *shivers