A Man Can Never Be A True Women.

You will get no contest from me in so far as parents should not use hormone therapy to force children to conform to heteronormative standards. I agree with you that hormone blockers should not be used to "cure" children of gender dysphoria or gender confusion. I am as opposed to this as I am to praying the gays away, straight camps, and elective surgery for children. Once again, NONE OF THIS has anything to do with whether or not a MAN can truly be a woman. At most this is an investigation of the implications of Transsexual surgeries. As to your appeals to Mr. Walt Heyer, this is an anecdotal case of a formerly transgender person who has made multiple identity changes in his life. Heyer merely illustrates that physical changes do not suffice to create a female. Eventually, Heyer makes a faith based decision to identify as a man and religiously object transsexuality. You falsely asses and restate my argument as follows: "the entire basis of your argument is that if someone claims they are something - then they are that something" This is a blatant straw man. I will reiterate that there exist two kinds of questions here, the WHO and the WHAT. I DO NOT CLAIM, as you assert of me, that one can change the physical matter of one"s self by claiming to be something. Restated, WE cannot change what we were born as. Indeed, much of the humanistic progress of history has been based in the realization that a person cannot help WHAT THEY ARE. Every reader must be clear on this. I do not claim that one can magically change one"s material substance by preference. My case is built entirely on the WHO question, the identity question. This is the question to which Womanhood or Manhood can be but two of many, many answers. These identities are not predicated on BIO-sex. If this is still in doubt, see my second argument. This WHO/WHAT distinction was never once addressed by the Pro. Instead, the assertion was repeatedly made that, "No matter how much surgery they have or how good they might believe they may look - they remain a man." (Pro Argument 3) I feel that we must recall that this assertion is exactly what we are debating and is not a counterpoint. Male/Female is a question of what. Man/Woman, the topic of this debate, is a question of WHO. Pro has sighted a lot of very illuminating and distressing evidence. ALL of which is meant to prove that transsexuals and transgender people are unhappy, at risk, and marginalized. This is important information. However, this has nothing to do with the criterion by which a person is a woman and certainly levels no attack against my case. I make no appeal to political correctness. I make no appeal to media, or pop-culture. I will summarize my most crucial point as follows, and leave the supporting arguments to the bulk of my writing above. 1.Man/Woman are statements of gender 2.Gender is a statement of identity. 3.Identity is not reliant on physical characteristics. Therefore: Man/Woman are not reliant on physical characteristics. Premise 1 is a mere definition. It certainly has not been contested. Support for premise 2 can be found in the third to last paragraph in my argument round one and my fifth paragraph of my second argument round. Support for Premise 3 can be found in the second to last paragraph of my first argument and the third paragraph of my second argument. My conclusion can be found throughout. In finality, my opponent has been burdened with showing that Bio-sex is analogous with gender. He has asserted this over and over again but has not supported it. Rather he has shown that transsexual and transgender people face hardships, a point nobody contests. In contrast, I have given a targeted argument to show exactly that a man can truly be a woman. Furthermore, any one of us cannot change what we are, but we are all free and obliged to decide who we are from this point on. Thank you Pro. Have a good evening.