Debate Topic : There are only two genders.

1. Nowhere in your R2 did you define gender or sex. All you do is say there are XX and XY people in this world. That is an oversimplification. You can't simply say that everyone with different chromosomal expressions are deformed and thus your definition still applies. It doesn't. Nor is acknowledging that XY and XX exist a definition of what gender and sex is. If your definition of "sex" is: Male XY, Female XX You leave out everyone that falls into neither category. That means sex is not able to be drawn down to two sexes. 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. All the audience or I know is that you think sex is chromosomal based, And gender is not. But with no justification you say that it people must choose the genders 'man' or 'woman. ' You don't give a definition of what gender means to you. You simply say people can swap between the two if they wish, But nothing else can exist. It is a nonsensical position because you fail to give a definition of gender at all that is meaningful, And your definition of sex doesn't include all of humanity. You have yet to answer my challenge. Define man and woman in a way that 100% of humanity falls under those categories. 2. You've already said chromosomes don't give us genders, Just sexes. I have no idea why you are bringing up gender and chromosomes here. Saying XXY or XYY "still falls under XY or XX" in an off-hand manner is ridiculous. These are different chromosomal expressions. That's like me pointing to a chimp and a human and saying "well they have a few similar features so they fall under the same category of animal even one has things the other doesn't. " Simply because someone IS a certain way doesn't mean that person is built "wrong. " Having a disorder makes someone different from normal. Differing from what is normal isn't always wrong. Abnormalities are how humans differ from species that are our close relatives. 3. Saying there is no designer is not a shot at evolution. To say this is to misunderstand evolution entirely. Evolution is not a design by a designer. It is natural selection. Those with traits more likely to survive in a given environment will thrive and generally have offspring to carry on those traits. Reproduction is important to evolution. Survival of the fittest. This has nothing to do with design because there is no designer. 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. 4. There is nothing unnatural about being born any specific way. It is entirely natural that people with disorders, Abnormalities, Et cetera, Will be born. It is how evolution works. It is the only way evolution works. It is entirely natural. 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. Having a second set of arms would be called a 'disorder, ' but would it actually be 'worse? ' Probably not. Would it be unnatural? No. You are mixing up terms. It is probably fine to say "this person is not like a "Normal" person" (even if you have no real definition of "normal. " Everyone would be abnormal somehow. ) It is not fine to say those people are 'unnatural. ' Natural points to nature. Abnormalities are natural. They are not normal. 5. Doctors tend to "assign" these people into the binary system we have set up and they are not informed they are different until far later in life. That doesn't make it correct that they do so. If we as society acknowledged intersex people and had an ounce of compassion, There would be no issue. These people could identify as what they actually are, A third sex. Intersex, And life would go on. You have no argument to say otherwise. The assigning of one of the binary sexes at birth, And parents indoctrinating the child into thinking they are one of those two things, Is not an argument that that is moral, Or correct, Or even the best way to handle things. Imagine the emotional turmoil these people go through later in life having to deal with the fact that they are neither male or female. Were I to be told I was born with both parts and a doctor removed one or chose one for me I would be outraged. Many people in this situation are, And the rights of intersex babies are being defended in court. Your argument right now is that "Doctors assign either male or female at birth, So that is the correct thing to do", Or, "They are forced into male or female at birth and don't know otherwise until later, So clearly there is only male or female. (Even though they switch to nonbinary later in life when they do know. ) These are bad arguments. Things are not correct because doctors currently do them. Bloodletting was not always correct. Leeches were not always correct. Again, 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. You're saying it can't be because it isn't. That is an argument you don't accept in the vast majority of other cases. Why do you accept it here? If there is a third sex, Then you have to explain to me how there are only two genders for the three sexes to fall into. You're mistaking my argument for a third sex for a direct argument for a third gender. Indirectly, Perhaps, It is, But not directly. If there is a third sex you have to justify why there are only two genders 'man' and 'woman' for the three sexes to fall into. Thus far, You haven't defined gender. You have only said one thing that it isn't - directly tied to chromosomes, And one thing people can do - choose one or the other. You haven't defined gender. You haven't explained why they can choose one or the other but not a third. Perhaps you'd like to define gender to make the debate more clear? If one doesn't define oneself as a 'man' or a 'woman' then of course there could be a third gender that is "neither" IE nonbinary. If gender is a social construct as you say and as I do, There can be an unlimited number of genders and no justification is necessary. You have no justification for 'man' or 'woman. ' Why do I need to provide a more solid justification for a third or more than you have for the initial two? If you point to chromosomes, I can show how there are more patterns than just XY or XX. If you point to reproduction, I can point to people with large gametes, People with small gametes, People with neither, People who never had any, People who used to but don't anymore. Arguments along any of these lines result in more than two genders. Arguments from social constructs or social roles fall under hundreds of lines, Not just two. So please, As I challenged you before, Define you two "genders" in a way that includes 100% of society. If you cannot, Please concede that there are more than two. 6. You're the one saying intersex people are "unnatural" the same way as others said homosexuals were "unnatural" and the same way people said blacks drinking from the same fountain as whites or attending the same schools or having relationships with white people was "unnatural. " I'm sorry if this is uncomfortable for you, But the analogies work just fine. No analogy is 100% analogous. Please don't try to say "but that isn't like 100% the same. " It is a ridiculous position. No analogy is 100% the same, Or it would not be an analogy. It was hardly just creationists that argued homosexuality was unnatural. Their use of 'unnatural' here is the same misinformed use of the word as your use is. It is literally wrong. Homosexuality occurs in nature all the time, Just as abnormalities do. There is no "scientific justification" for homosexuality. There is no 'gay gene' far as I recall. What we are attracted to is a complex crossing of nature and nurture we do not understand. Please, If you can, Give me your "scientific justification" of homosexuality. I've given you a far less arbitrary definition of a third gender already. Also, Classifying nonbinary people as 'unsure' is an incorrect statement. Many are entirely sure that they are not women or men. You have no argument as to why people who don't fall under either socially constructed gender's social norms cannot be classified as a different social construct. People classify themselves as 'gamers, ' 'hippies', 'nerds', 'geeks' et cetera. These are not referred to as genders, But they are social constructs. There is not a 'scientific justification' for their existence. These people simply say they do certain things. Not 100% of these people would share any single trait, But they can all fall under these categories because they choose to or they fit one of several traits that qualify them. You can say everyone has some 'manly' traits that qualify them as 'men' if you want, But most people have traits from both 'man' and 'woman. ' Masculine and feminine. A spectrum is more correct than a solid binary. Some gamers can say that other people who say they are gamers are not if they'd like, But they simply have a different definition for the attribute. You, On the other hand, Are saying that people fall under two categories and can only fall under two categories, Yet you fail to define these categories in a way that excludes all else. You have given no justification for this statement. I would think if you had a solid justification you would've presented it by now. You have yet to show one negative societal impact that would occur over acknowledging a third sex or a third gender. If we accepted these people there would be no issue. Bathrooms are not a real criticism of this. Please, I ask just the one thing of you. Define two genders that include all humans. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht.