Debate Topic : There are only two genders.

1. I'm a teacher. That is my profession. What I do when I lay out a description of a subject for a student and they say "I don't understand, Can you clarify x" is not say "I made my position perfectly clear, You're just trying to trap me. " This, In my professional opinion, Is a poor way to teach. I'm not "trying to trap you" or anything along those lines. I'm only interested in the truth. I care nothing for winning debates. You can look at my entire debate history. I don't use tactics, I concede points, Et cetera all the time. If I'm asking your definition of something it is because I either don't understand your definition or you did not, In fact, Make it perfectly clear. That you say it was 100% clear already is a fault of your own. It clearly was not. If a case was laid out to me to justify the holocaust or the genocide of populations I would agree with them. I consider the two or more gender debate significantly below those. I try my best to ask myself if I'm being intellectually dishonest in a debate. I consider myself here to not be so. If I ask for your definition it is because it is either not clear or I don't understand it. It is perfectly possible to present your stance well but for your opponent to still not understand it. No matter how well I explain a subject to my students there will still be a number of them that do not understand with the words that I use. If I don't already believe your position it is either because I have never heard of your point(s) before, And thus will need to be 'taught' them, Or I have heard them before and have sound counters to them. I sincerely doubt it was the former. I will let the judges decide. 2. My challenges go unanswered yet again. The challenge (Man and woman defined in such a way to include 100% of humanity) is a gender challenge. This debate is about genders, Not sexes. On top of that Man/woman are gender terms, Not sex terms. Sex terms are male/female. Trans people say "I am a woman" or "I am a man" not "I am male" or "I am female. " Your refusal to answer the challenge should be noted by the judges. You have no way to define man and woman and include 100% of humanity as it stands, Because all definitions you use and all requirements you make would lead to more than two categories of humanity. If you did actually have a definition that would leave us with only two groups of people, I submit that you would have given it. Had you already defined it sufficiently, All you would have had to do is copy+paste. Perhaps I actually had missed it in your initial arguments, Then the fault would be on me. As it stands, Your refusal to define your terms and your insistence that you made it clear already (for the fifth time? ) only shows how weak the ground upon which you stand is. If I went to a student and told them how disappointed I was that they did not understand me perfectly the first time or the second time or even the third time I presented them with something new to them, I would not be a good teacher. Refusing even once to supply your definitions (the judges can decide whether or not you did well enough) is simply evidence that your position is not thought out well enough. I have already shown in my previous round how you did not actually give us a definition of gender. You have only given us one thing that it is not. That is not a definition of what it is. Apples are not worms. That is not a definition of what apples are. 3. My definitions of sex and gender work perfectly well. They are not faulty simply because you declare them to be so with no arguments to the contrary. Sex - Reproductive potential based on physical features (penis, Testes, Uterus), Chromosomes, (XX, XY), And the fertility of those features. There are people who fall outside of the "Male or female" spectrum. There are people with both sets of features. Does this mean they have to be forced to be one or the other? No. Someone born with only one set who is not fertile is not forced to be nothing. They are considered abnormal. We look for ways to cure them. Why not have people who can be male and female? My definition here allows for intersex people, And it covers people who are not fertile. Males are still male if they have a penis but no fertility. We can potentially cure them of that. Their reproductive facilities are for small gametes, Not large ones. Limiting sex to a binary is a ridiculous position that the future will certainly not hold. With medical advances we will be able to make eggs for males and sperm for females. We will be able to make wombs and penises. The only way you can deny that sex transitions will be real is if you think there is something supernatural going on. There will be people who have both large and small gametes in the future. There will be people who decide to have no facilities at all and be entirely asexual. My definition for sex covers everything that is and everything that could be. Your declaration that it doesn't work is not sufficient for me to change my definition, Just as how if all I did was declare your position false, You would not be swayed either. Why do you allow this line of argument for yourself but not for others? Because it is not a legitimate form of argument. My definition of 'gender' is a socially constructed set of norms that you generally follow. There are an unlimited number of these. "Woman" would be likes dresses, Likes pink/purple, Likes dolls as a child, Likes their skin to be soft and largely shaven, Long hair, Et cetera, But none of these are disqualifying if the person does not have them. It is about what they seek to be identified with. Not all women liked dolls as kids. Not all like to wear dresses. Not all like pink/purple, Not all like their skin soft or shaven, Not all like long hair. If these people say they are women that's fine, That's what they are. That is what they seek to present themselves as to other people. Perhaps they do only use their reproductive potential as a definition to their gender. That's not my problem. Perhaps they haven't thought it through all the way either. Man/woman/boy/girl/et cetera are "gender" terms. Male/Female/Intersex are "sex" terms. Your claim that you weren't sure to which I referred only shows your inexperience with the subject matter. Your refusal to give a response to the challenge for either of them shows your lack of a definition either way. At no point in this debate or in any of my debates have I tried to "shame" my opponents or "screech" at them in a "SJW"-esque manner. I am here to search for the truth. I'm completely fine with there being only two genders if a good enough definition is presented to me. That isn't something I'd resist. All I'm looking for here is a definition that includes all persons into a binary system. Until I have a definition that works, How could I possibly accept it over mine that works for everyone? 4. Bathrooms have solutions. Unisex bathrooms. Make stalls more private. There are fewer trans people raping people in the opposite sex's bathrooms than there are same-sex people that do. The point is entirely irrelevant. For it to be a problem, There would have to be a larger percentage of trans people raping opposite sexed people than same-sexed do. At this point, It is safer for people to go to the bathroom with trans people than it is for them to go to the bathroom with same-sexed people. The point is entirely moot. On top of that, You'll typically never know when the people you go to the bathroom with are trans. There are plenty of ugly women out there who look like men who go to the female bathroom. This is not a problem. Your claim that it is with no evidence is not enough for me. Sports teams are a social issue. One way around it is to define our leagues as sex-based instead of gender-based. Most everyone agrees that mtw trans people shouldn't compete with natural females due to the physical advantages that they have. Defining them as sex-based eliminates all of the problems. There are currently no testosterone limits et cetera to most females. It is questionable why it isn't okay for mtw people who are under the testosterone limits for specific lengths of time to compete in the leagues. If testosterone makes up the advantages we see. Or, Why mtw can't compete if they never went through male puberty. So yes, That is a social problem. However, It is not a problem with 3+ genders. Sports teams are an issue that exists within the binary system as well. It is so strange for you to cite this as a problem with accepting a third gender when it is literally a problem which falls under the binary system. That is why it has no bearing on this debate. If people name people names instead of being accepting, Is that a problem with the people calling names or the people being named? To conclude, You have refused to answer my challenge both rounds. I have presented my definitions, You have not. You have presented problems to me (sports teams, Gender dysphoria) that exist in the binary system you present as well, And cite them as problems with a 3+ gendered system, Which they are clearly not. If they exist in a binary system, They are not problems for 3+ gendered systems. I have presented my arguments. I have presented scientific counters to your scientific examples. I have presented social arguments against your social examples. I have shown when your arguments are fallacious. "We have always done it this way therefore that is the right way" IE the argument from tradition is everywhere in your examples. You don't accept this argument for other subjects. Why do you think I should accept them for this one? If your definition of a binary system is consistent and valid, And my definition of a 3+ system is consistent and valid, We could argue which we ought to use. Multiple definitions of the same thing could all be valid. There may yet be definitions of a binary system that works and applies to 100% of humanity. I have yet to see it. -Thoht