There are Only Two Genders

In his most recent argument, my opponent makes the accusation that: "my opponent clings dogmatically to the dictionary" towards me, while simultaneously advocating prescriptive grammar over descriptive grammar. In case the reader is unsure as to what these terms mean, as my opponent failed to define them, I will explain them as follows: "Prescriptive grammar" is the notion that dictionaries, professors of English literature, and other authorities, get to define what words mean. If the dictionary gives a particular meaning to a word, prescriptive grammar would make that the "correct" meaning of that word, regardless of the use of that word in everyday language by most people. Typically, it clings to the original usage of a word, rather than adapting to fit its modern usage. This is contrary to "descriptive grammar", which is the notion that how everyday people use a word defines what it means, regardless of what so-called authorities say. An example of this is in the usage of the word "gay". Originally, "gay" meant "happy, joyous or colourful", but its usage changed to mean "homosexual". Prescriptive grammar would hold that "gay" has the former meaning rather than the latter, whereas descriptive grammar would define it as the latter. Clearly, my opponent"s accusation that I cling to the dictionary too strongly, while simultaneously advocating prescriptive grammar, is a case of "he who lives in a glass house throwing stones". In any case, the dictionary definitions I presented were not critical to my argument, as even if I were to concede that "gender" and "sex" are synonymous, (and please do not take this as me actually conceding such), then my argument that there are more than two *sexes* would apply also to the notion that there were more than two *genders*, and therefore my argument would be strengthened, not weakened. If you accept my definitions as true, then my last post presented two separate arguments- one that there are more than two sexes, and the other that there are more than two genders. If you fail to accept my definitions as true, then my last post presented two arguments to the same effect- that there are more than two genders. Despite my opponent"s baseless assertion that "his very arguments rest on them, like a castle on sand", this claim is demonstrably false, as my arguments would be combined and strengthened if the dictionary definition no longer applied. I only quoted such a definition in order to give some context and background information to this debate. (At this point, though not important to the debate itself, I would like to point out that I am a woman, not a man, and I would therefore appreciate it if my opponent used "she/her" pronouns rather than "he/him"). Most of the rest of my opponent"s argument is used to advocate prescriptive grammar over descriptive grammar. Though this is completely irrelevant to the motion, I feel I should argue against this, as he is incorrect about this issue, too. Reader, I ask you to look at the following definitions, and to choose which one is "correct" for each word: "Bad: A homosexual, effeminate, or submissive man". "Bad: Negative, undesirable or disadvantageous". (0:36-0:52) "Fun: A piece of cloth or fabric". "Fun: Entertaining, enjoyable or high-flying". (1:45-2:14) A prescriptive grammarist would necessarily have to accept the former definition in each case. However, almost everyone, presumably you, as the reader, included, accepts the latter definition. We are descriptive grammarists, not prescriptive. My opponent"s futile clinging to outdated definitions is illogical, snobbish and unnecessary. Even if I were to completely unnecessarily concede prescriptive grammar as superior, my source was the Oxford English Dictionary- what better source for a prescriptive definition can there be? My opponent, after attempting to assert the superiority of prescriptive grammar, which he did badly and which would turn out to be irrelevant to the motion even if he had succeeded in doing so, proceeded to argue in a more relevant way as follows: "Take particular note of the postmodifiers in this list: "syndrome", "deficiency", "non-disjunction", "lag"... These do not constitute genders, they constitute medical abnormalities. The abnormalities of the few do not define the normalities of the many." It is at this point that I would like to draw the attention of both my opponent and the reader to the wording of the motion: "There are only two genders" No part of this motion requires that these genders (or sexes, as my opponent has actually argued) are commonplace. Consider an analogous motion: "There are only two breeds of dog". Imagine we lived in a world where 99.99% of all dogs were either dalmatians or alsatians. If I can point to the existence of a rottweiler, then I have fundamentally defeated the motion, regardless of how obscure and uncommon such a breed is. Likewise, I have managed to point to at least 18 different ways in which a human individual"s physical anatomy, secondary sex characteristics, chromosomes and so on, can be structured. I willingly concede that most of these states of being are incredibly rare, but this does not in any way invalidate the point that they exist and meet the definition of a "sex", and therefore that the motion, or rather how my opponent has incorrectly argued it, is false. To echo my opponent"s lazy extrapolation between sex and gender, "The same goes for gender identities."- it is irrelevant that many of them are uncommon. They exist and there are more than two of them. Ergo, motion defeated. In conclusion for this part of the argument: 1) Prescriptive grammar is not superior to descriptive grammar- descriptive grammar is, by definition, what most people use to understand words. 2) Even if prescriptive grammar were superior to descriptive grammar, this would in no way damage my original arguments- in fact, a prescriptive definition of "sex" and "gender" would compound and strengthen my arguments. 3) The fact that most sexes and genders are relatively rare is irrelevant to this motion- provided 3 of each exist (and I have demonstrated this), no matter how rare they are, the motion is defeated.