On balance, gender is more nature than nurture.

I will first rebut Con's case, and then defend my own.Sex is a Human Concept RebuttalCon contends that, because humans are born unable to distinguish between the sexes and must learn the difference, the concept must be based on external factors rather than biology. I had already ceded that sex does not define gender. Con’s logic past that—because the concept of sex must be learned in order to be comprehended, sex itself is learned—is flawed. There are, in fact, very clear biological distinctions between the sexes—males have penises, emphasize testosterone production; females have vaginas, emphasize estrogen production, and have the capacity for incubating a child. These differences are not arbitrary, as Con claims without elaboration or a source, and they have biological implications. Regardless of whether a human knows it at birth, females can fulfill the role of giving birth; males cannot; the distinction is concrete and provides a solid basis for one component of gender roles. The same goes for biological strength, as I showed with my plow example in Argument 1. Animals do not possess the capacity for higher-order thinking that humans do, and cannot comprehend the definition of sex, but this does not imply that they do not have sexes with clearly defined roles derived from instinct, as I demonstrated in my opening argument. With this established, the rest of Con’s “Sex is a human concept” argument is not topical. Nurture is not the same as “human concept”; animals are nurtured, too. Wolves, for example, learn hunting by going out with the pack (1). That’s nurture, but it isn’t a human concept.Gender is a Social Concept Rebuttal Con’s argument that the features of biological sex are arbitrarily taught is simply incorrect, and unsourced. Sex by definition is a distinction based on reproductive functions, and this definition was implicitly used by both myself and Con, who stated that sex is a matter of “biological distinctions” and constantly intertwined the word “biological” with the word “sex”. The fact that the word must be taught in order to be understood does NOT mean that the concept behind the word is societal. For example, “food” is a word that humans must be taught, as with all words, and yet, food is not a societal construct, but a biological need. Sex is a biological attribute, regardless of whether it must be taught to be understood, or not. A clearer example might be the excretory process—humans do not know what goes on inside their own bodies, but the fact that they have to learn about it to comprehend it does not make excretion a nurtured process. On the whole, Con does not sufficiently elaborate on his reasoning for many of his points. He never sufficiently explains why sex is a nurture concept rather than a nature concept, nor why the fact that biological sex does not define gender is relevant, as I clearly articulated in my second argument that gender identities are still biologically formed, and that there is still a clear relationship between gender identities and gender roles. Con's Conclusion RebuttalsCon has not shown in any way how the factors that determine gender are arbitrary, and has not demonstrated how mutability is evidence of societal or even environmental influence rather than changes in biological suitability to given situations, while I have shown that they have a clear, biological basis. Con concedes that gender is rooted in biology, thus, it is accepted that the concept of gender arose from nature, and was not arbitrarily constructed by societies. There is no question about it; gender identities are derived mostly from biology – the influence of nature. Pro's Defense:From my opening argument is the most important concept in this debate that relates to almost every single defense—“To affirm the resolution, I must prove that societal views of the sexes are derived from the biological differences between the sexes, and not from external factors”. Society dictates that girls should wear dresses and boys should wear pants, but Con proves no evidence that this societal view is based on nurture. Con argues that because biological sex is a taught distinction, the concept of gender based on it is nurture. This is half-true. Learning the biological differences between the sexes will result in a slightly different view of gender roles, as I can personally attest to, but this does not mean that the differences do not immediately shape the concept of gender without being consciously recognized. Con has acknowledged that my premises about biological differences between the sexes leading to gender roles are true and has only challenged me on the conclusion, so I will repeat that females are biologically child-bearers. No nurturing can change that fact, save for biological surgeries, which are in effect changing biological nature, rather than nurturing in themselves. I cede that the ability to distinguish between male and female is learned. However, these differences can be learned without environmental pressures, and the differences between the sexes and between the genders, as I showed in my opening argument, are fundamentally biological, regardless. Gender being a social concept does not mean it is inherently nurture; societal views arise from biological situations, as I have shown. Con’s first refutation disagrees only with the conclusion of Argument 1, arguing that gender roles have changed due to societal pressure. However, the societal pressure is not the most important reason; they have changed recently due the difference in what biological factors are important now. In Argument 1, I stated that males were more suited to plow-based agriculture due to their strength, and thus took that role. In today’s post-industrial societies, both men and women are equally biologically capable of performing necessary tasks. More importantly, I repeat: as I stated in R2, “To affirm the resolution, I must prove that societal views of the sexes are derived from the biological differences between the sexes, and not from external factors”. Con has not satisfactorily demonstrated that societal views of the sexes are generated by society itself, and not from biological factors, in this case; his claim that gender roles are taught is unsourced, and furthermore, irrelevant due to not contesting the influence of biology on whatever is taught. My example about the plow, for example, does not show that gender isn’t taught, as babies aren’t born with intricate agricultural knowledge, but it does show that these teachings are firmly grounded in biological reasons. For this reason, my argument stands. Con’s second refutation is against my third point. He provides no source to back up his claim that gender is not losing relevance; non-binary gender is inherently against the very definition that Con agreed with—“The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)”, from my R2. This definition very clearly articulates gender as a duality of male or female, so, non-binary genders and gender fluidity do in fact mean that the concept of gender is becoming unimportant/dying out. The other major flaw in Con’s assertion is that he ignores the impact that biological factors have upon determining societal views and influence, which has been a major part of my argument since the beginning. “Gender is being defined as whatever society defines it to be,” he states; however, the very definition of gender we agreed upon was the societal views toward the sexes, so this is wholly irrelevant. He does not back up his claim that gender is based on societal evidence. The “weeaboo” point is an inside joke between Mittens and I, and should be acknowledged as such, rather than an ad hominem. My second point about gender identification was never contested, so it stands accepted; gender identification is a completely biological process. Source: 1. http://www.wolf.org...