Gender is biological not social

My interlocutor seems to have a few arguments: (1) people would retain their gender identity if placed into a society without gender, (2) laterality shows that gender has a biological basis and (3) the possibility of a genetic basis for transgender people. To be fair to my interlocutor, They admit that the third is under-researched. I will also argue miscellaneous contentions. My interlocutor proposes a thought experiment: if children are "raised as their sex" and then suddenly taken into some genderless society, They would retain their gender identity. This supposedly shows that gender is biological. However, There are flaws with this line of reasoning. At what age are they taken into this hypothetical society? Children typically develop a sense of gender identity and an understanding of gender (insofar as they know what things like masculinity and femininity are) before the age of 5[30, 31, 32]. Given that children understand gender and have a gender identity by this point, Children taken to this hypothetical society wouldn"t retain their gender identity as there isn"t one to retain. If they are taken after they have developed their sense of gender identity, Then this still doesn"t show that gender is biological. Is learnt knowledge biological? Following your reasoning, If one is taken to a society where the knowledge is unknown, It is. Why is this reasoning flawed? It presupposes that the only way of storing something (in these cases, Knowledge and gender identity) is biological (it isn"t[33, 39]). Gender identity, As you essentially admit (see coming paragraphs), Is caused by the social and then reflected by the psychological. The topic is "Gender is biological not social". Even if you"d consider psychology to be a field of biology, There is still an essential social element[2, 12, 13, 32]. Furthermore, The topic is regarding gender, Not gender identity. In arguing that gender identity is biological, You fail to argue that gender is biological. The two are not the same[40, 41, 42, 43]. The next point is regarding laterality. Again, They talk about gender identity, Not gender itself. My argument here is the same as my prior one: they developed their gender identity, Before the age of 5, And then the psychological began to reflect that. This is far more likely socialised neuroplasticity (other examples of which exist[44]). Furthermore, I"d point out that gender identity still exists between the period between them first gaining a gender identity to their brains to begin reflecting this. This shows that one"s psychology, One"s biology, And the traits thereof aren"t essential to gender identity, Regardless of if there are any. Therefore, Gender isn"t biological as it exists prior to the development of these gendered correlations; biological traits aren"t essential traits of gender identity whereas the social is. My interlocutor asserts that there is possible a genetic element to gender identity. Gender cannot be caused by gender as there are many identical twins where only one is transgender and the other isn"t[examples: 35, 36, 37]. "If we look [. . . ] at gay males, There is a higher concordance of homosexuality in twins and a higher prevalence of homosexuality in maternal male relatives, Such as uncles and cousins [. . . ]. These correlations have not been found with [transgender] people. "[38] This highly indicates that there is no genetic basis for gender. Furthermore, As you say, It "isn't too researched" - it"s also highly contested. My interlocutor cites a source, Their fifth. It doesn"t directly speak about gender or sex whatsoever. What it does talk about is, However, That culture can alter genetics over time. This is irrelevant - genetics changing over time, Regardless of the cause, Doesn"t show a biological basis for gender. My interlocutor claims that "[y]our gender is biological because of the lateralisation of your own brain, Whilst this can be cause[d] by society, We would still have lateralised brains even if society didn't exist. " This is misleading. As my interlocutor argues, Their third source states that lateralisation of the brain is socialised. If a child was taken from its parents from birth and society had no influence over it, This wouldn"t happen. Their third source affirms my claims. Their conclusion says that once one learns about gender and realises their gender identity, It doesn"t change, Showing that "gender is not societal, But biological". However, This conclusion is flawed as it misunderstands what a social construct is. Gender works as a social construct in the following way: a. Everyone has an idea of what gender is in a culture (discrepancies may exist, Only a general idea is needed in order to be uniform). b. The aforementioned concepts are passed down from the parents (socially) and otherwise socialised into the child (e. G. By mass marketing, Toys, Etc. ). These two things show how gender as a social construct works and continues to work throughout the generations. Just because one"s gender identity doesn"t change (genderfluid people exist, But their gender identity is genderfluid), Doesn"t mean gender is biological. If you brought up a child isolated from society in every possible way, They would have no concept of gender (because gender is social, As earlier established). My interlocutor seems to only state that gender identity is biological. I have shown that this is untrue - mostly their issues come from a misunderstanding of what a social construct is. This is, Again, Irrelevant. The topic is "Gender is biological not social", Not "Gender identity is biological". My interlocutor argues for only the latter in their last argument. Furthermore, They seem to concede that gender is social. As I said uncontested in my first argument"s first sentence, "[t]his debate entirely boils down to semantics". In their third argument"s introduction, They state the following: "[i]n this round, When I'm referring to "gender" I will be referring to the "internal sense of being male or female" and when I refer to "sex" I'll be [referring] to the [genitalia], Chromosomes and hormones. My opponent has made it clear that these two should be separated". Furthermore, In their second argument, They say they "agree that "gender" has been used in terms of "masculinity["] and "femininity"". In this regard, They seem to concede that I am correct: gender is social. ~ Sources ~ 30. Https://www. Healthychildren. Org/English/ages-stages/gradeschool/Pages/Gender-Identity-and-Gender-Confusion-In-Children. Aspx 31. Http://www. Iflscience. Com/brain/when-do-children-develop-their-gender-identity/ 32. Http://gozips. Uakron. Edu/~susan8/PARINF. HTM 33. Https://www. Psychologytoday. Com/us/blog/hormones-and-the-brain/201608/gender-identity-is-in-the-brain-what-does-tell-us 34. Http://sci-hub. Tw/http://psycnet. Apa. Org/doiLanding? Doi=10. 1037%2F0003-066X. 34. 11. 1085 35. Https://abcnews. Go. Com/Health/identical-twin-boys-transgender-brother-sister/story? Id=15142268 36. Https://people. Com/books/twin-transgender-story-jonas-and-nicole-maines-told-in-book-becoming-nicole/ 37. Https://www. Yahoo. Com/news/when-one-identical-twin-comes-1283944279269430. Html 38. Http://sci-hub. Tw/https://www. Tandfonline. Com/doi/abs/10. 1080/19359700903165290 39. Https://www. Nationalgeographic. Com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/brain/ 40. Https://www. Apa. Org/topics/lgbt/transgender. Aspx 41. Https://www. Hrc. Org/resources/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-terminology-and-definitions 42. Https://tgeu. Org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Malta_GIGESC_trans_law_2015. Pdf 43. Http://eige. Europa. Eu/rdc/thesaurus/terms/1179 44. Https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491815/