Debate Topic : There are only two genders.

Your arguments: 1. Context. You say sex does not necessarily determine gender in your view. If this is the case, Then you either agree there are more than two genders or you limit it to "man" and "woman" arbitrarily, And misunderstand the definition between why "gender" and "sex" are not equivalent. The only third option is that you throw this sentence in to mislead the judges or me, Which I'll assume is not the case. We are not only born with XX and XY. This is an undisputed fact. XXY, XYY, Et cetera people exist. If your only definition for 'sex' is 'one who possesses XX or XY chromosomes' then your definition of sex does not include all humans that exist. There are at least 3 sexes in this case alone. That means there are people who identify with neither 'female' or 'male', And under your likely definition of gender, They don't identify necessarily as 'woman' or 'man. ' This is undisputed fact. Nonbinary people are sometimes those who are born intersex. Whose genitalia match neither sex, Or both. To say otherwise is to deny science. In this respect there are at least 3 sexes, And at least 3 genders that everyone should recognize, Making this my victory on this initial 'context' point alone. If you can't find scientific material on the subject then ask in the comments and I'll supply some links to read. 2. Biological Argument Humans aren't designed to be anything. There is no designer. Even if there were, He either screwed up by making more than XX and XY or he intentionally made nature create more than these two categories. There is no 'correct' or 'proper' human. To say that there are only two 'correct' ways to be human is an appeal to nature fallacy. That one must be able to reproduce to be a proper 'human. ' On top of this, Not every person born is able to reproduce in the first place. How about intersex people without the traits of females or males? What is your arbitrary way of classifying these people as one or the other? What about people who aren't interested in participating in the arbitrary 2-class system society has rigged? To say that we should always follow society's rules from the past is an appeal to tradition fallacy. There is no way for you to defend that everything we have done is correct just because we've always done it. It didn't work for slavery, It didn't work for homosexuality, And it doesn't work for limiting genders to a binary choice that not everyone fits in. Again, Biology doesn't even agree with you. If XX is female/woman to you and XY is male/man to you, Then which of these do XXX people fall into, Or XXY, Or XYY? Not 100% of people in these categories classify themselves as either. Doctors make the choice much of the time which way they go and how they are raised. Most humans classify themselves as how they were raised. That doesn't make it correct. So your argument here consists of an appeal to nature, An appeal to tradition, And an incorrect biological 'fact. ' 3. Gender Dysphoria Gender dysphoria exists in the world regardless of society's feelings towards the matter. Even in your world where there are two genders and you "allow" people to switch between the two alone, There would still be gender dysphoria between the two genders. Gender dysphoria is when people's outwards appearance doesn't match what they identify as. No third gender is necessary for this to occur. Only two are. Your argument that "Gender dysphoria exists so there should only be two genders" is completely ridiculous. It still exists even in the society you are suggesting. There are no laws in place telling people they must acknowledge other people's identities. No one has been publicly shamed for refusing to acknowledge that someone is a rabbit if they identify as a rabbit. Certainly, No one has been sent to jail for refusing to acknowledge someone is a rabbit. The laws that are on the books in some places tell government officials, Business owners, And employers to not discriminate based on any protected class. None of this requires someone to identify someone as a rabbit, Or even pretend to. It matters not what each individual person 'expects' society to do. What matters is what laws are being enforced. There are men out there who expect all females to bend over their desk whenever they require it. I don't condemn all men because of those men, Nor do I formulate my arguments around the expectations of these outliers. 4. Social Application Most things are social constructs when you really boil it down. That doesn't mean they're meaningless. I would count myself among the number that says "sex" is biological reality. However, There are more than two sexes if we're basing it on chromosomes. If we're basing it on a formula that includes other things, There are still more than two sexes. "Gender" is whatever we identify ourselves as. This isn't destiny. It is a complex combination of biology and environment. Nature and nurture. Both of these things are social constructs to some extent. There is no reason to believe that what we identify as (gender) should be correlated to our chromosomes (sex). You are saying that there necessarily has to be specifically a chromosomal link between the two. You have defeated this point on your own. If XX people can identify as men and XY people can identify as females then there is not a necessary chromosomal link between sex and gender. If you accept that XY women and XX men exist, You can't possibly hold the position that a scientific justification is necessary for a third gender to exist, Because the two genders you recognize don't have a necessary chromosomal link. On top of that, I have established that XY and XX doesn't cover the totality of human chromosomal expression. So in fact, There is a scientific argument for it. It would be equally arbitrary to your own though, Because people in each of these chromosomal expressions identify as many more than just those three specific genders. (nonbinary, Woman, Man) You have, Multiple times, Insisted that we MUST draw a firm binary line, Yet you have given no reason for why this is necessarily true. Your 'gender dysphoria' argument doesn't work to this end. Gender dysphoria exists in a binary system as well. Your argument that transgenders don't exist would be to deny that gender dysphoria exists in a world where a firm line is drawn, Which you have no proof for. My arguments: 1. There is no necessary need for a binary. Society doesn't suddenly collapse if some small percentage of society suddenly choose to identify as rabbits. What if the world is made overall a happier place if we all acknowledge that rabbitmen exist? You have no argument to suggest otherwise. Gender dysphoria isn't created by people telling other people that they can be whatever they wish. It is created when someone IS something their outwards appearance does not match. To fail to see this is to fail to understand what gender dysphoria is. Your argument boils down to "society would be better if we force people into a binary that they don't naturally wish to accept instead of telling everyone we accept them regardless of what they feel. " 2. There is no need for a scientific link between chromosomal expression and gender identity. People of all chromosomal expressions identify as a wide array of different gender identities. There is no causal link, So there is no necessary chromosomal link to gender. 3. There is no reason to value reproduction when determining what one identifies as. There are people out there who produce small gametes, People who produce large gametes, And then there are people who do not produce either. There are people who can't reproduce. Why should these people identify as either male or female, As either men or women? The distinction of male or female is pointless when it comes to these people. To conclude, Gender dysphoria exists for two reasons. 1. Society currently values the binary system greatly with no real justification. We try to pigeonhole people into either one or the other and we treat them differently depending on this initial choice they had no real control in. There is no reason to do so. You have no reason to suggest why society is better treating people as X or Y rather than simply as humans. As persons. 2. We don't have the medical knowledge and control over our environment necessary to change our bodies as we wish. This is a problem for many emotional reasons. Fat people who feel body dysphoria because they want to be skinny and they work hard to do so but their biology doesn't allow it. People who want slender forms and to be able to carry children who can't because they were born sterile or as a person who produces small gametes. In the end, When we gain the medical knowledge necessary the only thing left to create gender dysphoria is that fraction of society who decide to pigeonhole people into one of two categories and who don't have the open mind to realize that life can be anything we want in the end. What happens to your argument when we can literally make people rabbits? For my opponent to have a consistent argument he has to meet this challenge. 1. Define man and woman in such a way to include 100% of humans in existence. Good luck, My interlocutor. In my world there are only persons. The ornamentation of these persons matters not at all to me. It is of little significance. It may be of interest to people to know whether or not someone produces large gametes or small gametes. In the end, Advanced medical knowledge could make this a moot point in the first place. Advanced technical knowledge could make it entirely meaningless. If society took my position in this matter think of all the problems that would immediately be erased. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht.