Debate Topic : There are only two genders.

I shall now move on to my closing argument. Context To be honest, I'm personally very disappointed with the approach my opponent brought forward in his third case. This was the argument where I had hoped my opponent had himself brought along interesting analytical facts to showcase what his stance represented but instead I was met with nothing but pointless accusations. For one it doesn't even feel like my opponent took time to read my case. Half of the analysis I brought in last round seems to have been completely overlooked and disregarded. Let me see if I have this right; One. My opponent has accused me of not properly laying the distinction between gender and sex/or define them. Two. My opponent has accused me of not presenting the negative societal impact of approving the motion. Three. My opponent has laid his entire response on the basis of subjectivity without bringing in any case examples/anecdotes or real world application. (And forgive me for saying this but this essentially felt like reading an argument written by a SJW). So let's be clear - One - I laid the distinction and explained the difference between sex and gender perfectly. I made a perfectly justified explanation as to why gender being a social construct should only be limited to the spectrum of being 'male' or 'female'. There are social repercussions (which my opponent never addressed or didn't even read) that come with integrating a third gender into society and I am still waiting (although now it's too late to respond as this is my last round) for my opponent to address this. Furthermore my opponent has laid out that I have an impractical and therfore invalid definition of sex and gender (and of course this being a definitional challenge my opponent fails to present an alternative definition) so I will address this. My opponent asks - "Define man and woman in a way that 100% of humanity falls under those categories. " Inherentely ridiculous question given that my opponent did not specify if I was supposed to define this under the biological (sex) definition or the social (gender) definition. This question literally only serves the purpose of hopefully catching me out on a definitional loophole which is a pretty poor hook to try dangling in front of me. I have made the distinction between gender and sex clear. However I choose to define this will simply be met with my opponents simplistic retort - "But not everyone is born that way/chooses to identify that way" which I have addressed earlier and I will address again as I close my case. I am not wasting anymore time on that right now. Two - I have presented the negative social impact of the third gender PERFECTLY. I have illustrated using anecdotal examples in my previous argument (the bathroom and sports team example) which my opponent overlooked. The fact that I have to point this out twice to my opponent is ridiculous. And again, I can't respond to whatever he chooses to say in response now to that because this is my last round. Instead of adding further analysis to an interesting topic I am forced to help my opponent nagivate through my case. Three - And as I have said, It's rather disappointing to note that my opponent presented no evidence throughout his entire response. This is a prety poor show from my opponent and I think everyone reading this deserved better than that. So now onto the main dish - The Cases - The Biological, The Social, And the Mixup "On top of that, You say that "gender" is NOT defined as Male XY, Female XX. However, Saying what your definition is NOT doesn't mean you have given us a real definition of what you think it IS. " I made it very clear that gender is a social construct. When parents raise their children per normal circumstances their sex defines how they are raised. Boys are taught to practice masculinity and chivalry whereas girls are taught to practice femininity. Intersex people as per my example are also raised as one or the other. And the reason it should only be on the male-female spectrum is to stay within a line of what should naturally be acceptable and because anything else will cause gravious complications. This has been made very clear from the start. "Having a disorder makes someone different from normal. Differing from what is normal isn't always wrong. " Yes, Indeed very true. And most emphatically under-analyzed. My opponent throughout his entire debate never fulfilled his side of the BoP. He has never showed why differing from what is normal by identifying as a third gender is RIGHT. I have made my case very clear as to why this has negative consequences and this is what affects those biologically implicated by being intersex in society. By telling them that there is virtually no problem in identifying as anything outside the male-female spectrum, You're inadvertently setting the status quo that more people will be confused about their orentiation now that gender is a completely fluid concept. As per the Australian study, Sticking to my status quo clearly has produced a more favorable impact on society. Fewer intersex people are confused about their identity and fewer complications are faced. No response from my opponent on this either. "If we were conscious and able to choose what we became we would also be designing ourselves. There would then be a designer. I can't help but think you put little thought into this. " You should clearly have been hired to teach college level philosophy. Yes we do not have control of the circumstances surrounding our conception as individuals. Yes we should have the ability to come out as who we are and integrate into society. But no we do not have the complete right to choose to become everything we want because at the end of the day we live in said society where the laws of order still apply to us. Any fantasy you choose to live in you can do so in your head. But you cannot enforce your fanatical belief that you identify as a non-binary alien species and expect the rest of society to conform to that because that presents problems for everyone else. In my case I have presented the bigger picture. Your case has not done so at all. "There is no argument you can make why intersex should not be identified as a socially acceptable third sex when it does in fact exist. " It exists in only 8 countries in the world. And in these countries legal recognition has been given to intersex people not for the case for a third gender but rather to provide a legal standing for those who biologically do not fit under the UN's classifcation for a man or a woman. In the couple case examples of Asian countries identifying non-binary genders as valid genders the problem of stigmatization of these communities is high. Notable examples are the 'Hijras' and the 'Khaniths' in Asia. So to retort I'd like to you to present where exactly the term 'socially acceptable' comes into play in the real world. Because in the countries that accept it social acceptance is far from evident and the legal repercussions are high. "You haven't defined gender. " - Quote of the day by my opponent I have showed you why they can't pick the third for reasons of which I have expaned upon greatly. Done and dusted. "You can say that people ought not WANT to be different from "normal" but that is a ridiculous argument, And one most people who are different from normal without extreme pain and suffering don't typically agree with. " We are here to help people who suffer from gender dysphoria. We are not here to cast them out and tell them we don't care about their pain. But at the end of the day your exception does not contort the laws of society because the majority rule. And in society as it is now the individual does not get to bend society to his will simply because he is unhappy with it. "There is no "scientific justification" for homosexuality. There is no 'gay gene' far as I recall. " This will take us into an another argument completely but yes there is. There is immense scientific evidence to suggest this (as in the source you can read) and the argument is that coming out is simply an environmental factor that depends on where the individual grows up. This is very clear because young boys and girls know they are gay as young as 5. "People classify themselves as 'gamers, ' 'hippies', 'nerds', 'geeks' et cetera" There is no law in which being titled a gamer or a hippie has an effect on society. Legalizing a third gender does. Enough with these ridiculous examples. Conclusion - I am thoroughly disappointed with the way this debate went. And the manner in which my opponent conducted the debate. I do respect him as a debater but the line of argumentation he went with was thoroughly displeasing as a debater to witness and I do ask the viewer reading this to consider the facts and analysis that has been put in. My debate has presented a solid structure. Under a solid premise. With case-by-case examples and societal repercussions that failing this motion will make. My opponent on the other hand spent his entire third case on definitional challenges and subjectivity. (Something that should have come up far sooner in round two or even when my opponent chose to accept this debate) There is a clear difference between sex and gender as I have presented. My opponents main question of the debate - "Define two genders that include all humans" is a redundant one in that it never specifies to which distinction (sex or gender) it is referring to. The social premise of gender is something we fit into. And the male-female spectrum it is based of is a spectrum that revolves around the natural state of order of how human beings are. That can't and should not be changed. The social repercussions are plenty (and unaddressed by my opponent entirely) and the legal repercussions are unnecessary. Cudos. And thank you. Source - . https://www. Theguardian. Com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it