On balance, gender is more nature than nurture.

Thanks, Solon.I'd like to start this round with a map of how I plan to lay out my arguments. I have a couple arguments, and a few rebuttals. They will be preceded by an introduction to the shenanigans that is nature vs. nurture. Still with me? Alright. Let's go.Intro: Nature vs. NurtureThe distinction between nature and nurture is the overarching dichotomy to this debate. Is the origins of a thing genetic (nature) or environmental (nurture)? There is no question whatsoever that a living thing's genotypical attributes and that some of the resulting phenotypes are genetic in origin. A person's natural eye color is completely genetic in origins. You cannot 'learn' to have brown eyes any more than you can 'learn' to be born with blonde hair. On the otherhand, the language you speak and the food that you eat are given to you via your surroundings and are based on nurture (environmental factors). Of course phenotypes aren't necessarily static and are also affected by environmental (nurture) factors. Height is partly determined by nutrition intake during childhood 60-80% of a person's height is determined by genetic factors while the other 20-40% is based on the quantity and quality of said nutrition (1). A person's eye and hair color can be changed via contacts and dyes respectively. Metabolic capactity is partly determined by a base metabolic rate (BMR) and a variety of factors including age, physical activity, body size, muscle mass, etc. The point is that there isn't a clear distinction whether something is nature or nurture in origins. Oftentimes, it is a combination of both.Discussions on the subject of whether something is more nature or nurture usually applies to sociological and abstract characteristics. Is a person more naturally inclined toward anger or is the person's temper caused by negative influences? How much of a person's sexuality is created by genetic foundations and how much is influenced by the person's social and physical surroundings? How much of a person's gender identity genetic? How much of it is learned or environmental?This is the subject of our debate, and I hope to be able to show the latter by the end of it all.Alright. This intro took longer than I expected, and I hope you're still with me because we're off into actual arguments!!Sex is a Human ConceptWhile it's true that some of the defining features of gender have some basis on biological sex, these bases are arbitrary. On what basis do we define characteristics of masculinity? On what basis do we say that females are the members of a species that gives birth? These biological distinctions are invented by humans. So the ability to use these distinctions to distinguish sex must be taught. Regardless of biological manifestations, biological sex is a human concept and is not always consistently applied. Solon is right. The existence of transgender people challenges societal notions of gender and sex, that sex defines gender. The same applies to those born with both male and female reproductive features a.k.a. intersex people. Not only does biological sex not define gender, the concept of sex itself is learned.Now what does this portend? While it's true that one cannot 'learn' to be born with mammarian glands, the idea that these glands define sex is objectively groundless and is taught by the biological sciences. In other words, the consituent factors that determine sex falls utterly on the side of nurture.What does this have to do with gender? I believe both Solon and I agree on the premise that sex does not define gender. In other words, we agree that the factors that define biological sex do not define gender, but rather serve as an influence. This point is about as far as our contentions agree. Solon believes that biological sex's influence on gender puts it more on the side of nature than nurture. Or so he thinks. As I've hopefully established, the features that define biological sex are arbitrarily taught. They are made up, and their influence (in Solon's word) on gender are based completely on the teachings of our social environment. Girls have long hair and wear dresses. Boys have short hair and wear pants and shirts. These are the elementary bases of distinctions that we use before we learn any better. We recognize "little boys" and "little girls" because that is what we are taught to recognize as children. As we grow older, we are taught the scientific factors that determine biological sex. We then start to distinguish gender using these scientific factors. Not because these factors have any defining relevance to gender (gender is not defined by biological sex), but because this error in distinction between gender is perpetuated by society around us. Our definitions of gender are artificially nurtured by our social environment. Both gender and sex are solely human concepts.Gender is a Social ConceptAn infant does not know what makes a person male or a female. Think about it. Some time between infanthood and adulthood, a child learns to distinguish between male and female. There is no defining characteristic to gender (re: intersex, transgenderism). Gender is what is taught to us. It is a social concept created by our social environment.Refutations1. Solon's first contention lights on the behavioral manifestations caused by the biological sex. A mother is more biologically fit to raise children and is thus the one who actually does it. He basically concludes that biological sex determines gender roles. Although his arguments are mostly correct, his conclusion us undermined by the fact that gender roles are taught to us, and is everchanging. Where once, centuries ago, men were expected to be sole providers, they are now matched by women's participation in the workforce. Where once women were expected to keep house, they are now no longer confined to home and kitchen. Gender roles change due to societal pressures (i.e. the feminist movement).2. Solon's third contention asserts that gender is losing relevance, and notes transgenderism as evidence. This is not true. Gender is not insignifcant. Transgenderism does not cause a deterioration of gender concepts. It simply redefines them as many transgendered humans still identify themselves into particular gender categories. Indeed, as Solon notes, gender is becoming "fluid in the eyes of society". Gender is being defined as whatever society defines it to be. Thus, it is society which defines gender. Society teaches us what gender. Gender, in other words, is completely based on societal influence.3. Solon is a weeaboo.Premise 1: Solon is a weeaboo.Premise 2: Weeaboo ideology is constrained by culture, thus rational impartiality is impossible.Conclusion: Solon is incapable of rational thought and thus lacks credibility. Discredit all his arguments.ConclusionGender is defined by society on multiples levels. The arbitrary, mutable nature of gender-determining factors is evidence of society's heavy influence to the concept. It is also true that gender takes originally from biological influences, but even these biological influences are arbitrarily and utterly defined by society.There is no question about it. Gender identities derives in majority from societal influence - the influence of nurture.Sources1. http://www.scientificamerican.com...