US "bathroom laws", on balance, are justified and beneficial to society.

My opponent's lengthy response is welcomed, though I'd suggest he stick to posting his arguments to this actual site. When you're typing your argument, you can click the "rich text" button, which will allow you to use various fonts and formatting tools. Google Docs can be problematic for voters and it's generally useful to keep everything here so as to maintain permanence. (Ie, your Google Docs link will likely not last as long as the rest of this debate.)As for the issue at hand, I will defend my case and rebut the opponent's arguments. Point 1: Being transgender is not a mental illness.To combat this point, truman references a single scientist who believes that being transgender is a mental illness. In most every field of science, it is easy to find at least one scientist who believes differently than the general consensus. For instance, it would not be difficult to find a handful of scientists who whole-heartedly believe that gravity is not a real or actual phenomenon. It is important that we look to the consensus of the general scientific community when attempting to talk about scientific ideas. I have already pointed out that the American Psychiatric Association, the organization that is considered the "who's who" of psyichiatric medicine, recently recategorized "transgenderism" such that it is no longer considered a mental disorder. They further made this their official opinion by updating the de facto psychiatric manual, the DSM-5, to reflect said idea. [1]It is critical that we understand that being transgender is not considered a mental disorder, as it invalidates many of the arguments that the opponent makes. In many places, he likens being transgender to "thinking one is the Governor of California" or "being a fish", while in actuality the latter would be considered a delusional mental disorder, while the former is not. The opponent further claims that transgenders are "not a legitimate group of people". This is again falsified by the existence of the APA's manual changes which directly refer to transgender people as a legitimate group. Beyond that, from a categorical perspective, it cannot be said that transgender people do not define a group of people, as if that were the case we would not be able to specifically refer to them. This is clearly not the case. Point 2: Laws that promote equality without doing harm are beneficial to society. Premise: "Bathroom laws" promote equality.The opponent continuosly references transgenders by their biological gender, while ignoring the reality of their gender identity. To just claim that "transgender people should use the bathroom matching their gender" is a statement that is innacurate, as it has no actual meaning. "Gender" alone is not a specific enough term, as the APA recognizes that one's "gender" is not just a biological state, but also a mental disposition. By ignoring the scientific consensus that gender is both biology and a mental state, the opponent is effectively avoiding contending the point at hand by assuming a reality that is false, as opposed to addressing the actual situation at hand. Whether a person can have a gender identity that differs from their biological gender is no longer a philosophical question. It is a scientific consensus reached by the psychiatric community as a whole and it must be considered as such. Subpoint: Bathrooms are not configured such that one bathroom cannot be used by only one biological sex.The opponent mentions two points here. First, he says that urinals are used by men, which is true. However, both bathrooms are equipped with stalls, something that can be used by either biological gender. As such, it can't be said that it is anymore difficult for a woman to use a men's bathroom than a woman's bathroom, and vice-versa. If we were to switch to a "single bathroom" (which I'm not suggesting), it would contain urinals and stalls and would not inconvenience either biological gender. The point of this was to state that a woman's bathroom is in no way "special", such that only a biological woman could easily use it, and vice-versa. This means claiming that a bathroom should only suit it's biological gender is unsupported and unfounded. Truman's second point is unsourced and obviously incorrect. He begins by implying that a woman's bathroom is safer because women have a "near 0% chance of being a pedophile". This number is actually 3% for children over the age of 6 and 12% for children under that age. [2] The opponent further admits that transgender people are "rarely pedophiles".Beyond that, this point is largely irrelevant. It is not the case that children only use women's restrooms, as men also take their children into the men's restroom. Not to mention that children are usually escorted by their parents when using the facilities, meaning that no pedophile would have access to that child. Furthermore, there has not been a single reported case in which a trans person used their gender identity to attack someone in the bathroom, as I have previously mentioned. Premise: Allowing trans people to use the bathroom matching their gender identity does no harm.The opponent seems to largely agree with this point. With both of these premises together, it can be concluded that this legislation is beneficial to society and therefore just, which satisfies the requirements of the resolution. In agreeing to this statement, the opponent agrees that no harm comes as a result of this bathroom laws, while I have demonstrated that an increase in equality is a direct result of this legislation. Anything that has benefits, but no harms, is considered to be "net beneficial".Point 3: Bathroom laws are consistent with the ideals and principles of the US.The opponent claims, without warrant, that transgender people do not have a lack of equality without bathroom laws. This statement stands in contention with my sourced and logically executed argument regarding gender identity. Before bathroom bills, transgender people were not able to use the bathroom matching their gender identity, whereas everyone else could. This demarkates a clear lack of equality, in every sense of the word.Furthermore, I never claimed that transgender people can use "whatever bathroom they want", but instead that they can use the bathroom matching their gender identity. This means a trans woman would use the woman's bathroom exclusively, just as trans men would use the men's bathroom exclusively. I am not claiming, nor is it the will of trans folk, that people should simply be able to "go back and forth" as they see fit.Opponent's Case"The men's bathroom is the men's bathroom..."The opponent here references the definition for "biological gender" without taking into account the general psychiatric consensus that gender identity can differ from biological gender. While it may be "easy" to disregard the rights of trans people by claiming that "gender identity" isn't real, is some choice or is a mental disorder, but that differs from the official psychiatric consensus on the issue, and thus is an unfounded opinion. "If one day I decided I'm Governor..."The opponent again disregards the scientific community's judgement on the issue by claiming that there "is no difference" in believing you are male while biological female and believing that you are the Governor of state in which you are not.The difference is clear, from a psychiatric standpoint. One is considered a healthy mental state, while the other is considered a mental delusion, likely in need of psychiatric help. The same applies if someone believed they were a fish. To deny this distinction is to deny the opinion of the medical community. The opponent certainly cannot be considered an expert in the field, so his opinion of the issue cannot be valued more highly. Instead, we are left with valuing the community's conclusion. "If a maniac decides he's a man... why do I have to play along?"The opponent here claims that my racism-transgenderphobia comparison is not apt because "men are more likely to be pedophiles" and "black people and white people" do not share fundementally different genatalia. This would be a valid argument if a "women's room" could only be used easily by women. As I've already discussed, this is not the case. The separation of bathrooms is largely arbitrary, in that there is no technical need for it. As such, a person's genatalia isn't a reason to discriminate. The claim that "men are more likely to be pedophiles", while true, is again irrelevant. The opponent already admitted trans people aren't likely to be pedophiles, I already explained why trans predators would not be successful and it's the fact that both trans women and trans men exist. Ie, any possible "increase" in pedophilia caused by biological men in women's rooms is offset by a "decrease" in pedophilia caused by biological women in men's rooms. Given this, it is a fair comparison to claim that a cisgender person cannot ban trans people from sharing a bathroom with them anymore than a racist cannot ban black people from eating in the same restaurant as them. (Or using the same bathroom as them, to bring the metaphor closer.)On this point, the opponent closes by claiming that "no one is trying to dictate" which bathrooms trans people use. This is an outright falsehood, as states like North Carolina (a place without a bathroom bill) are specifically dictating that a trans person cannot use the bathroom matching their gender identity. ConclusionI'm flat out of space. I'll conclude by stating the the opponent is choosing to ignore the opinion of the medical community, and is basing his arguments off such. Unless he can prove that the scientific community generally considers transgenderism to be a mental illness, from a reliable source, his arguments don't hold water. I look forward to round 3. Sources:[1] - http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com...;[2] - http://abcnews.go.com...;