On balance, gender is more nature than nurture.

I will defend my case, rebut Con’s, and then quickly note why I fulfilled the BoP more substantially than Con in my conclusion. Pro’s defense #1 Con repeats that the gender roles today have dramatically shifted. He claims that this is due to societal pressure, because the shift was “arbitrary”. This is ignoring what I stated last round, “they have changed recently due the difference in what biological factors are important now,” which I supported with my argument about the shifting of gender roles due to the plow. I already directly addressed this rebuttal as well, stating, “In today’s. .. societies, both men and women are equally biologically capable of performing necessary tasks. ” Societal pressure was the catalyst for the change in women’s roles, but it wouldn't have been possible without the fundamental shift in what biological factors were important in society. To put it in clearer terms, compare to the beginning of the first World War. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the direct cause, but it wouldn’t have sparked a war without numerous and complex outside factors. I’ve already elaborated on the biological factors that lead to gender roles in my previous arguments, so I feel no need to repeat myself here. Con’s argument about the reversal of gender roles actually supports the notion that gender is biological rather than “arbitrary”, as he claims. His own source states that the role of the father is “shaped by such factors as severe living conditions. .. Or unusual reproductive techniques like external fertilization (used by fish). .. ” (1). The latter example is explicitly biological due to the biological nature of reproduction. The former is implicit, as animals do not possess the mental capacity for long-term planning, and must react instinctively to their environment. Take Con's emperor penguin example. There is a reason that the female hunts, rather than the male. Giving birth, not surprisingly, is more demanding on the mother than the father. The mother goes out to hunt while the father continues to stay with the kid just because the mother needs to eat sooner (2). The fact that the traits of the sexes must be taught means nothing in the context of this argument. Males and females of every species (except for in cases of asexual reproduction) reproduce together. The sex that lays/has the egg/similar object is female. The sex that fertilizes this egg is the male. The definition of sex is explicitly based on reproductive functions (3). There are two distinct groups involved in reproduction in nearly every animal society, except asexual species, which don’t have genders; thus, two sexes. Con’s claim that sex is arbitrarily defined is nonsense. Even intersex people easily fall into one of the two categories of male and female, based on whether they would be fertilizing or fertilized if not for their infertility. Here's a list of many intersex conditions to verify this. (4). Con has never addressed the core of my argument—that gender began and exists because of the biological differences between the sexes. Con argues, “So while [Pro] agrees that sex doesn't define gender, he contrarily refuses to accept the implications of his agreement. ” The only implication of that concession is that sex and gender are not the same; it does not mean that sex doesn't have the biggest influence on gender. Pro’s Defense #2 Con’s only rebuttal to this is that sex is a human concept, which I have clearly demonstrated to be at best irrelevant, and, at worst, false. This point stands. Pro’s Defense #3 It does not matter whether the word “gender” is being redefined or not. Con agreed to the definition I presented, and, by that definition, gender is indeed dying out in importance and prominence. It’s rather concerning that Con in his first round stated there shouldn’t be any semantic abuse, and yet is the only one to actually use semantics. Even if I were to allow for gender being “redefined”, it would not make a significant difference. I provided a clear logical link back in round 1—societal views toward the differences between the sexes become irrelevant as it is increasingly possible to ignore one’s birth sex and change it. A woman won’t be confined to the female role if she makes herself a man. The significance of the difference between the sexes and the reason it created gender is that sex cannot be changed easily. You change the clothes you wear every day, but you can’t change your gender every day (as an aside, that’d be really cool). Biology would be the core reason for this new definition, as sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) specifically affects the human anatomical make-up determined before birth. Also, Con does not explain at all how he draws his own conclusion “that gender is being redefined”, and drops the point. I explained, while he did not, so my argument stands. Rebuttal 1: Sex is a Human ConceptI’ve shown in this round, as well as my last, that to call sex a human concept is wrong. The only thing I need to add is that my mention of specific features does address his point. It shows the differences between the sexes are not arbitrary. Males have sexual organs designed to fertilize the egg. Females have sexual organs to carry the egg and to allow it to be fertilized. The same is true of almost all animals (again, except asexuals). Again, it doesn’t matter that sex does not define gender; I already conceded that, and have shown that the two are strongly linked. Also, “Because logic” is not valid support for his argument. Rebuttal 2: Gender is a Social Concept“My argument here is that without specific environments teaching a person how to distinguish and denominate people into specific categories of sexes, the idea that anyone can be 'male' or 'female' simply does not exist. ” The above contention by Con is simply wrong. Animals are not taught in specific environments to differentiate between male and female, but they do. As I showed in round 1, they have clearly defined gender roles. Con has the BoP to show that this is not so, and he has not. Gender originated as a binary because reproduction is a binary process; except in asexual societies, there are two distinct entities needed to create a new organism. On a similar note, Con overly simplifies my definition of sex. I never attempted to ignore intersex people; see Pro’s Defense #1 in this round. There are objective reasons why sex is classified as it is—the aforementioned requirement for a new organism is one, but I have mentioned several before. “However, a thing's being taught is the very core of the concept of nurture and societal influence. It is what defines nurture. The statement is a clear-cut case of a false assertion. ” This is objectively wrong. Let’s extend this logic. Children aren’t born knowing the names of the colors. Does that mean that when they look at an apple, they are unable to see this color just because they don’t have a name to the concept? Kids aren’t born knowing Newton’s Laws of Motion. Does that mean they don’t exist until the kids learn about them? Sex exists as a concept whether or not an individual understands it or not. Con’s logic immediately falls apart. What would be nurture is if a child were taught to have male or female sexual organs and could choose between the two at birth. That’s not the case. “Also, his examples don't actually address the point I'm making. ” I proved this one wrong over the course of this round. Rebuttal 3: WeeabooIf Con continues to claim this as a valid point in his final round and does not recant it, consider it an ad hominem. ConclusionAll of my major arguments--that gender is rooted in biological differences between the sexes and is responsible for maintaining it, as demonstrated by the decline of gender as SRS has risen, and that biology influences gender identification--stand. Con has not substantiated his claims, and his "human concept" arguments have not stood up to scrutiny. I've demonstrated that gender is more nature than nurture.