A Man Can Never Be A True Women.

I think that for the most part you have read my arguments accurately. However, you seem to define biologically female and woman analogously. This may be a damning point of disagreement between us. Indeed, had you phrased this debate under the uncontroversial title, A born biological female cannot be a born biological male, there would be no argument (nor any reason to read further). However, this debate was called under your words, which invoke the question of Man/Womanhood. If you meant simply the juxtaposition of born Bio-sex, then you ought to use the terms Female/Male or Biological female/ Biological male. Therefore, if you intend to stick to your guns on this resolution, under which we are debating, you must now prove that Woman/Man is analogous to birth given biological sex. Thus far, I believe that I am the only one who has illustrated a viable or consistent criterion for Womanhood. I have shown that bio-female is at least not sufficient to denote womanhood, and indeed not even necessary. In order to reiterate why typical bio-femaleness is not a necessary condition of Womanhood, I will restate my above argument regarding woman as an identity, applied to persons who are not necessarily biologically female. This distinction can be subtle, as in the case of Intersex persons, or charismatic, as in many transsexual cases. An intersex person (perhaps but not limited to a woman with Turner"s Syndrome), those to whom I alluded in my earlier argument, are uncontroversially identified by whichever gender each is most comfortable with. If Manhood or Womanhood can be awarded to Intersex persons, then why not to transsexual persons as well? I"m glad we can agree that suicide rates and depression are moot. These statistics certainly do not alter the definition or criterion for Womanhood or Manhood. Along these lines, the anecdote repeated quoted regarding a regretful transgender person does not lend itself to creating a criterion for gender identity. Suicide is a tragic reality for which society cannot be called blameless (once again, please read the article my opponent cited, URL below). http://www.livescience.com... With regard to Facebook gender preference options" I see that this distresses you and likely many others. This further leads me to believe that we may be speaking across purposes. This diversity of identity possibilities does not describe physical attribute or birth sex. Rather these are statements of identity. By analogy, if I said I were a Caucasian Hindu, this would be atypical, but not a contradiction. Indeed, if we look at Facebook religious identities, we find even greater diversity. While in both the cases of race and religion, bio-sex and gender identity, we find a correlation, in neither cse do we find that these statements are analogous. There are who statements and there are what statements. A what-am-I statement may involve height, weight, or bio-sex. A who-am-I statement is a question of how one is identified or categorized such as religion, creed, name, title, and gender identity. In response to the assertion that up to twenty schools a year are inviting transsexuals to speak in school, I would have everyone read the above article at the given URL from "Live Science," which my opponent (not I) cited. The article is illuminating and clearly shows that our society treats transsexual persons less than desirably. SIR, in what way does the exposure of children to another lifestyle constitute child abuse? In what way does proclaiming oneself anything, denote the harm of on looking children? I understand that you have a distain for the sight of transsexuals, you have made this clear, but to assert that their speech in schools is in anyway comparable to wantonly harming or abusing a child is to level a heinous accusation based solely on personal prejudice. I will not hear it. With regard to pronoun use. I don"t think it is reasonable to expect every person to inherently know which pronoun is appropriate. Quickly, because this bares none to our actual argument. I think it is reasonable to expect people with atypical pronoun preferences to verbally specify if a specific pronoun is preferred. Finally, I want to point out (because this is a debate) that in every one of your refutations you appealed not to counterpoint but to the controversial premise that is itself the subject of our debate, namely, "a man can never be a true woman."