Transgenderism Should Be Banned.

I negate the resolution "Transgenderism Should Be Banned."The topic of transgenderism is a complex and interesting topic. Before getting into my case there is one things that needs clearing up. I will be responding to both my opponents affirmative construction, the challenge to change their mind, and the resolution. I specify this because they are different. The resolution deals not only with the science of the topic but also brings in moral and legal questions, while the challenge to change my opponents mind includes only the science. With this in mind I will get onto my case. I will start by answering my opponents challenge to change their mind, because the science I discuss here will also apply to my argument later on. The main reason that my opponent is wrong is because of the difference between sex and gender. These excerpts from the University of Minnesota"s online library(1) explains this nicely, "Sex refers to the anatomical and other biological differences between females and males that are determined at the moment of conception and develop in the womb and throughout childhood and adolescence." Now gender is related, but different, this except from the same text(1) explains this, "If sex is a biological concept, then gender is a social concept. It refers to the social and cultural differences a society assigns to people based on their (biological) sex." So while yes there may be two sexes, gender is an entirely different case. There can be an infinite amount of genders because gender is just the expression of what segment we feel we believe in. While at birth ones sex and gender are the same, it does not necessarily have to stay that way, because gender is a social construct, it is the classification we feel we best fit in. Another way to think about is like this, we classify animals by their sex because they cannot express what they feel they are, and when you go to a doctors office they ask for your sex, but in social situations between humans we use gender, because gender is a reflection of how we feel, not what science decides we are. To summarize this, there are two sexes yes, but there are an infinite amount of genders because gender is a social construct as opposed to a biological classification. Now I will move on and address the resolution, "Transgenderism Should Be Banned." It should not be.. As I mentioned earlier there is a difference between sex and gender. Gender is how you express yourself. Now Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(2) says this "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." and this is supported not only by Article 29 of the same declaration " 1 - Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. 2 - In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. 3 - These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.," but also by the First Amendment of the American Bill of Rights(3) " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Now what this shows is a strong legal backing for the idea that transgenderism should not be banned. But even if there was no legal code that talked about this it would still be immoral to ban transgenderism. A good critieria for morality is supplies by Immanuel Kant"s Categorical Imperative. Based on Kant"s Categorical Imperative(4) there are two pieces to moral goodness or the sense of morality. The first is keeping your own moral goodness. Kant says "First, unlike anything else, there is no conceivable circumstance in which we regard our own moral goodness as worth forfeiting simply in order to obtain some desirable object." This means that under no circumstances can we violate our own moral goodness, even if it benefits us. The second piece is making sure that your moral actions do not spread immorality, or the ends don't justify the means. Kant also says Indeed, since a good will is good under any condition, its goodness must not depend on any particular conditions obtaining." So to summarize this moral code, something is immoral if it spreads undue harm or is done with nefarious purposes. Now generally speaking transgender people do not change their gender because they want to harm someone, nor does it harm other people. Therefore banning transgenderism is immoral. To summarize my response to the resolution, the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides a legal reason as to why transgenderism should not be banned, and it is immoral anyways. In Conclusion, sex and gender, while closely related are different. Because of this difference it is simple to conclude that my opponent is wrong. As for the resolution legislation by both the U.N. and the U.S. show that it is illegal to ban transgenderism and Immanuel Kant"s Categorical Imperative shows that it is immoral. So for these reasons we must conclude that not only are there multiple genders, but it is immoral and illegal to prohibit transgenderism, and thus you are obligated to cast a negative balot. Sources: University of Minnesota - 1 - http://open.lib.umn.edu... U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights - 2 - http://www.un.org... U.S. Bill of Rights - 3 - https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org... Immanuel Kant"s Categorical Imperative - 4 - https://plato.stanford.edu...