The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Are there only two genders/sexes?in Science

SilverishGoldNova

What do you think? I personally believe that there are only 2 genders. Lets make it simple. Chromosones determine your gender, and chromosomal abnormalities are not genders. If you have a Y chromosone, or 2, or 3 of them, etc, you are male. If you don't have one, you are a female.  

Gooberry

“You can be male because you were born female, but you have 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at age 12. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X's HAS an SRY gene, and so you have a male body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes- but also a Y," she wrote. "You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all. And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male. And vice - effing - versa."

This is from a biology teacher, and one of the best summaries thus far.

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

“You can be male because you were born female, but you have 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at age 12. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X's HAS an SRY gene, and so you have a male body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes- but also a Y," she wrote. "You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all. And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male. And vice - effing - versa."

This is from a biology teacher, and one of the best summaries thus far.

Is that the issue in the vast majority gender question cases?  Are those the people demanding to use the restrooms and locker rooms of people of the other sex?

Nope

SilverishGoldNova The question is not specific. Gender is often used to mean how society views someone sexually (This may suggest their might be more than two). Sex is normally defined genetically. Am I to assume the definitions of both words?

WilliamSchulz

I will post later, the key is to distinguish between sex and gender, while one can be lesbian or transgender, that does not change the fact that they were a man or woman. Gender is a choice (wrong one at that) and sex is biological.

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

“You can be male because you were born female, but you have 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at age 12. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X's HAS an SRY gene, and so you have a male body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes- but also a Y," she wrote. "You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all. And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male. And vice - effing - versa."

This is from a biology teacher, and one of the best summaries thus far.

Is that the issue in the vast majority gender question cases?  Are those the people demanding to use the restrooms and locker rooms of people of the other sex?

This is the issue in the question being asked by the OP

MajoMILSdlGMGV

WilliamSchulz said:

I will post later, the key is to distinguish between sex and gender, while one can be lesbian or transgender, that does not change the fact that they were a man or woman. Gender is a choice (wrong one at that) and sex is biological.

@WilliamSchulz First of all, lesbianism has nothing to do with gender, that has to do with sexual orientation. 

According to APA sexual orientation is: 

"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex."  

Recuperated from: http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

According to the APA dictionary of psychology, gender is defined as the following. 

"Gender (n): the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and SEX reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female (i.e., masculinity or femininity.)"

Gender is also not always a choice. There are a lot of psychological factors that are involved in people whose gender doesn't match their sex. In a lot of the cases it has to do with their parent's behaviors towards them and sometimes there are hormones involved. 

WilliamSchulz

MajoMILSdlGMGV said:

WilliamSchulz said:

I will post later, the key is to distinguish between sex and gender, while one can be lesbian or transgender, that does not change the fact that they were a man or woman. Gender is a choice (wrong one at that) and sex is biological.

@WilliamSchulz First of all, lesbianism has nothing to do with gender, that has to do with sexual orientation. 

According to APA sexual orientation is: 

"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex."  

Recuperated from: http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

According to the APA dictionary of psychology, gender is defined as the following. 

"Gender (n): the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and SEX reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female (i.e., masculinity or femininity.)"

Gender is also not always a choice. There are a lot of psychological factors that are involved in people whose gender doesn't match their sex. In a lot of the cases it has to do with their parent's behaviors towards them and sometimes there are hormones involved. 

According to your definitions of gender, lesbians are the social and cultural side of gender-hood because of rights and movements in their name. Gender and Sexual Orientation can mean one and the same in some instances.

2. You proved my point, sex is biological, in definition 2, and psychological and behavioral patterns (gender) are ALWAYS a choice. I could choose to make love with my blankets, but that does not change my biological status as a male. I can choose to wash my blanket, but I am still a male. I could make a turban out of my blanket, but I am still a male. I have a lot of choices with the blanket, but there is no changing that I am a male. If I repeat the events multiple times, it would classify as behavioral, but I would still be a male. Gender is always a choice, because while we can not change our biological nature, we sure as heck can change the way we perceive ourselves, and our perception of ourselves is in every way a choice. 

3. Distinguish between gender and sex, gender will never match sex because they mean two different things, and there are no arguments for saying gender doesn't match sex because sex can't change, gender is the one that changes because we perceive ourselves differently. Gender never matches sex because we come up with obscure reasons for how we feel, I feel like a woman, therefore I must be, that doesn't match with my manhood. No duh, you're still a man, even if you feel like a woman. Gender changes, but sex does not. 

4. Hence, feelings toward gender can be altered by parental behavior and external factors, sex can not. Also, there are no hormones involved with gender or gayness. We are born with DNA, but we are not programmed to act a certain way from birth, we choose to be that way once we are older because we can make a choice, the choice is not set before us before we even consider it. 

WilliamSchulz

For that reason, there should only be the 2 sex classification because that will never change, but our feelings about gender will flip on a dime, and are often misconstrued. Feel free to respond with any disagreements, this is only a starting point.

Pogue

@WilliamSchulz

The six biological karyotype sexes that do not result in death to the fetus are:

• X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
• XX – Most common form of female
• XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
• XY – Most common form of male
• XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
• XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births

Sex is on a spectrum. It is not just two settings. 

WilliamSchulz

@Pogue ;

Can I get a source for this information? In the meantime, these instances are first and foremost very rare, and two if a person was born, say with two genitalia or genitalia growing later in life, it wouldn't change their sex. If anything, if this was to occur, then the mother and father could choose the sex, but this is a unlikely circumstance which morality is willing to accept to over arch the solidifying idea that there are two sexes, some deformities allow special circumstantial choices to be made regarding sex, but that wasn't a cause of human-made consciousness from the affected individual itself. 

SilverishGoldNova

Pogue said:

@WilliamSchulz

The six biological karyotype sexes that do not result in death to the fetus are:

• X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
• XX – Most common form of female
• XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
• XY – Most common form of male
• XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
• XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births

Sex is on a spectrum. It is not just two settings. 

I'm a bit confused, are you trying to argue there are more than 2 sexes, and this can be proven by extremely rare abnormalities, or no? Again, your gender is determined by chromosomes, and if you have a Y chromosone then you are a biological male. If not, you are a biological female.

JustIgnoreMe

@CYDdharta Re: "Is that the issue in the vast majority gender question cases?"
@SilverishGoldNova Re: "rare abnormalities"
@WilliamSchulz Re: "very rare"

Is rarity an argument against the existence of something? Isn't it the opposite?

WilliamSchulz

No, if you read the last part of my argument, I mention that if such instances were to occur, than the parents could choose the sex o the child, but since it is rare, it is something that morality will accept as a means to encompass the two sex world.

CYDdharta

JustIgnoreMe said:

@CYDdharta Re: "Is that the issue in the vast majority gender question cases?"
@SilverishGoldNova Re: "rare abnormalities"
@WilliamSchulz Re: "very rare"

Is rarity an argument against the existence of something? Isn't it the opposite?

The question is, is it something that we need to make special accommodations for?

SilverishGoldNova

JustIgnoreMe said:

@CYDdharta Re: "Is that the issue in the vast majority gender question cases?"
@SilverishGoldNova Re: "rare abnormalities"
@WilliamSchulz Re: "very rare"

Is rarity an argument against the existence of something? Isn't it the opposite?

Again for the third time if you have a Y chromosome you are male if not then you are a female

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

JustIgnoreMe said:

@CYDdharta Re: "Is that the issue in the vast majority gender question cases?"
@SilverishGoldNova Re: "rare abnormalities"
@WilliamSchulz Re: "very rare"

Is rarity an argument against the existence of something? Isn't it the opposite?

The question is, is it something that we need to make special accommodations for?

Last time I checked, using the bathroom wasn’t a  “special accommodation”.

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

Last time I checked, using the bathroom wasn’t a  “special accommodation”.

It's a special accommodation if you have to make a special bathroom for it.

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

Last time I checked, using the bathroom wasn’t a  “special accommodation”.

It's a special accommodation if you have to make a special bathroom for it.

Who’s proposing legally requiring a special bathroom for people?

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

Who’s proposing legally requiring a special bathroom for people?

Who specified a legal requirement?

JustIgnoreMe

@SilverishGoldNova ;

So, even if you've never had a penis, but you do have a vagina, breasts, fallopian tubes, a uterus, a cervix and ovaries - you are a male?
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-new-female-case-with-47xxy-karyotype-and-sry-2167-0250-1000157.php?aid=71945
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680992/

And, if you are XX and born with a penis, you are what exactly??
http://www.iioab.org/Vol3(3)2012/3(3)49-50.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajmg.1320340317/full

Pardon the pun, but Y ?

JustIgnoreMe

CYDdharta said:

JustIgnoreMe said:

@CYDdharta Re: "Is that the issue in the vast majority gender question cases?"
@SilverishGoldNova Re: "rare abnormalities"
@WilliamSchulz Re: "very rare"

Is rarity an argument against the existence of something? Isn't it the opposite?

The question is, is it something that we need to make special accommodations for?

If you look, you will find that the question is actually: "Are there only two genders/sexes?"

WilliamSchulz

JustIgnoreMe said:

CYDdharta said:

JustIgnoreMe said:

@CYDdharta Re: "Is that the issue in the vast majority gender question cases?"
@SilverishGoldNova Re: "rare abnormalities"
@WilliamSchulz Re: "very rare"

Is rarity an argument against the existence of something? Isn't it the opposite?

The question is, is it something that we need to make special accommodations for?

If you look, you will find that the question is actually: "Are there only two genders/sexes?"

Precisely, people that I know think that sex and gender are the same thing, but they are different from each other. If such a disagreement were to occur, there would at least be some unification point here.

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

Who’s proposing legally requiring a special bathroom for people?

Who specified a legal requirement?

You said “if you have to make a special bathroom for it.”

If there is no real way I can see to make someone “have to” make a special bathroom with having a legal requirement for it.

So that would be you.

Fredsnephew

@WilliamSchulz ;

The basic definition of gender/sex is the same. Male or female.

The recognised physiological norm of gender/sex, is that we are either male or female.

That is not to say that all people are born displaying the recognised physiological characteristics of gender/sex.

As we know. Many abnormal physiological characteristics can arise during foetal development, not just characteristics relating to gender/sex.

Ultimately gender/sex is about the procreation of the species. In simple terms a female produces an egg and a male fertilises that egg.

Excepting issues arising due to appreciable physiological abnormalities All other gender/sex issues are socio-conceptually derived.

That is to say. How and who we choose to form relationships with and how we choose to derive gratification from sexual interaction with other people, are not actually relevant to the reality of gender/sex.

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

You said “if you have to make a special bathroom for it.”

If there is no real way I can see to make someone “have to” make a special bathroom with having a legal requirement for it.

So that would be you.

If your local school system decides they need to make special accommodations, such separate bathrooms, there may be no legal requirement but you'll be paying for it just the same. 

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

You said “if you have to make a special bathroom for it.”

If there is no real way I can see to make someone “have to” make a special bathroom with having a legal requirement for it.

So that would be you.

If your local school system decides they need to make special accommodations, such separate bathrooms, there may be no legal requirement but you'll be paying for it just the same. 

But they don’t have to do it

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

But they don’t have to do it

But you'll still have to pay for it.

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

But they don’t have to do it

But you'll still have to pay for it.

So you’re agreeing that there is no law or any encorcement that requires schools to make
special accommodations like build special bathrooms?

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

So you’re agreeing that there is no law or any encorcement that requires schools to make
special accommodations like build special bathrooms?

It's a distinction without a difference.

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

So you’re agreeing that there is no law or any encorcement that requires schools to make
special accommodations like build special bathrooms?

It's a distinction without a difference.

Oh there is a big difference. It seems you’re trying to oversell your position, by making it sound like lots of things are being forced on people, that making special accommodations are required in order to accept things. In reality that’s not actually the case at all.

The big difference, is that in one case broad accommodations are forced to be made, as you implied. In the other case there are no broad accommodations that are forced to be made.

The problem with transgender bathrooms or individuals is mostly conservative hysteria of their own making without any real or genuine concern behind it.

anonymousdebater

There are more than 2 sexes because there are more than 2 combinations of sex chromosomes. I believe that sex = gender.

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

Oh there is a big difference. It seems you’re trying to oversell your position, by making it sound like lots of things are being forced on people, that making special accommodations are required in order to accept things. In reality that’s not actually the case at all.

The big difference, is that in one case broad accommodations are forced to be made, as you implied. In the other case there are no broad accommodations that are forced to be made.

The problem with transgender bathrooms or individuals is mostly conservative hysteria of their own making without any real or genuine concern behind it.

No, you are incorrect.  In both cases, broad accommodations are being forced to be made.  The only difference is in which government entity is doing the forcing.  That's, at best, a minor distinction. 

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

Oh there is a big difference. It seems you’re trying to oversell your position, by making it sound like lots of things are being forced on people, that making special accommodations are required in order to accept things. In reality that’s not actually the case at all.

The big difference, is that in one case broad accommodations are forced to be made, as you implied. In the other case there are no broad accommodations that are forced to be made.

The problem with transgender bathrooms or individuals is mostly conservative hysteria of their own making without any real or genuine concern behind it.

No, you are incorrect.  In both cases, broad accommodations are being forced to be made.  The only difference is in which government entity is doing the forcing.  That's, at best, a minor distinction. 

I’m sorry you are, again, attempting to argue black is white.

There’s no legal requirement for any special accomodations at all (other than being able to actually use the bathroom), like I said.

In reality, also, the biggest expense / change that the schools are actually faced with that have opted to have a transgender bathroom, is simply the cost associated with changing the sign on a disabled toilet.

The Idea that there are broad, significant and weighty accomodations being made; is simply manufactured nonsense.

As I said; in reality the simplest accomodation you can make, is simply to let people use the bathroom, without using conservative faux outrage to try and use the government as a
tool to dictate where people should pee because you don’t like the people in question.

That really should be the end of it.
 

JustIgnoreMe

CYDdharta said:

JustIgnoreMe said:

@CYDdharta Re: "Is that the issue in the vast majority gender question cases?"
@SilverishGoldNova Re: "rare abnormalities"
@WilliamSchulz Re: "very rare"

Is rarity an argument against the existence of something? Isn't it the opposite?

The question is, is it something that we need to make special accommodations for?

I think if you look, you will find that the question is actually: "Are there only two genders/sexes?"

JustIgnoreMe

CYDdharta said:

JustIgnoreMe said:

@CYDdharta Re: "Is that the issue in the vast majority gender question cases?"
@SilverishGoldNova Re: "rare abnormalities"
@WilliamSchulz Re: "very rare"

Is rarity an argument against the existence of something? Isn't it the opposite?

The question is, is it something that we need to make special accommodations for?

I think if you look, you will find that the question is actually: "Are there only two genders/sexes?"

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

I’m sorry you are, again, attempting to argue black is white.

There’s no legal requirement for any special accomodations at all (other than being able to actually use the bathroom), like I said.

In reality, also, the biggest expense / change that the schools are actually faced with that have opted to have a transgender bathroom, is simply the cost associated with changing the sign on a disabled toilet.

The Idea that there are broad, significant and weighty accomodations being made; is simply manufactured nonsense.

As I said; in reality the simplest accomodation you can make, is simply to let people use the bathroom, without using conservative faux outrage to try and use the government as a
tool to dictate where people should pee because you don’t like the people in question.

That really should be the end of it.
 

No, it wasn't conservative outrage that caused this to be an issue.  It was never an issue before, in fact, it wasn't an issue at all until liberals pushed it.  Our country was established well over 200 years ago.  There have always been people with chromosomal abnormalities, but it was never a problem before, not until liberals made it a problem.

WilliamSchulz

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

I’m sorry you are, again, attempting to argue black is white.

There’s no legal requirement for any special accomodations at all (other than being able to actually use the bathroom), like I said.

In reality, also, the biggest expense / change that the schools are actually faced with that have opted to have a transgender bathroom, is simply the cost associated with changing the sign on a disabled toilet.

The Idea that there are broad, significant and weighty accomodations being made; is simply manufactured nonsense.

As I said; in reality the simplest accomodation you can make, is simply to let people use the bathroom, without using conservative faux outrage to try and use the government as a
tool to dictate where people should pee because you don’t like the people in question.

That really should be the end of it.
 

No, it wasn't conservative outrage that caused this to be an issue.  It was never an issue before, in fact, it wasn't an issue at all until liberals pushed it.  Our country was established well over 200 years ago.  There have always been people with chromosomal abnormalities, but it was never a problem before, not until liberals made it a problem.

Politics aside, I think that there are some moral crisis that would be occurring in transgender bathrooms. For instance, whose to say that men and women who go into the bathrooms aren't going to make out or show sexual activity. It is a time bomb waiting to explode, as men and women's desires are supposed to be founded in love, it does not make sense to place them in a situation where genitalia are exposed in front of the opposite sex. I feel as if some people who aren't transgender are going to abuse the rule and seek pleasure where pleasure is to be wrongly had, and that causes moral damage beyond the political controversy. 

someone234

@WilliamSchulz homosexuals already get to completely unfairly do this on the low meanwhile any non homosexual can't interact with the other gender in the same way on the low.

It's already unfair, by allowing everyone to equally break the rule it becomes fair again.

WilliamSchulz

someone234 said:

@WilliamSchulz homosexuals already get to completely unfairly do this on the low meanwhile any non homosexual can't interact with the other gender in the same way on the low.

It's already unfair, by allowing everyone to equally break the rule it becomes fair again.

I agree with this, I think that the issue will only worsen if there is a law passed that permits this. 

someone234

@WilliamSchulz if it's consensual why is it wrong or are you referring to trans women overpowering cis women?

Gooberry

WilliamSchulz said:

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

I’m sorry you are, again, attempting to argue black is white.

There’s no legal requirement for any special accomodations at all (other than being able to actually use the bathroom), like I said.

In reality, also, the biggest expense / change that the schools are actually faced with that have opted to have a transgender bathroom, is simply the cost associated with changing the sign on a disabled toilet.

The Idea that there are broad, significant and weighty accomodations being made; is simply manufactured nonsense.

As I said; in reality the simplest accomodation you can make, is simply to let people use the bathroom, without using conservative faux outrage to try and use the government as a
tool to dictate where people should pee because you don’t like the people in question.

That really should be the end of it.
 

No, it wasn't conservative outrage that caused this to be an issue.  It was never an issue before, in fact, it wasn't an issue at all until liberals pushed it.  Our country was established well over 200 years ago.  There have always been people with chromosomal abnormalities, but it was never a problem before, not until liberals made it a problem.

Politics aside, I think that there are some moral crisis that would be occurring in transgender bathrooms. For instance, whose to say that men and women who go into the bathrooms aren't going to make out or show sexual activity. It is a time bomb waiting to explode, as men and women's desires are supposed to be founded in love, it does not make sense to place them in a situation where genitalia are exposed in front of the opposite sex. I feel as if some people who aren't transgender are going to abuse the rule and seek pleasure where pleasure is to be wrongly had, and that causes moral damage beyond the political controversy. 

If you think that people would be overcome by lust if they see genetalia of the opposite sex, you have been watching far too much pornography.

someone234

@Gooberry the not seeing is much more torturous to the boner than the actual seeing indeed.

WilliamSchulz

Gooberry said:

WilliamSchulz said:

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

I’m sorry you are, again, attempting to argue black is white.

There’s no legal requirement for any special accomodations at all (other than being able to actually use the bathroom), like I said.

In reality, also, the biggest expense / change that the schools are actually faced with that have opted to have a transgender bathroom, is simply the cost associated with changing the sign on a disabled toilet.

The Idea that there are broad, significant and weighty accomodations being made; is simply manufactured nonsense.

As I said; in reality the simplest accomodation you can make, is simply to let people use the bathroom, without using conservative faux outrage to try and use the government as a
tool to dictate where people should pee because you don’t like the people in question.

That really should be the end of it.
 

No, it wasn't conservative outrage that caused this to be an issue.  It was never an issue before, in fact, it wasn't an issue at all until liberals pushed it.  Our country was established well over 200 years ago.  There have always been people with chromosomal abnormalities, but it was never a problem before, not until liberals made it a problem.

Politics aside, I think that there are some moral crisis that would be occurring in transgender bathrooms. For instance, whose to say that men and women who go into the bathrooms aren't going to make out or show sexual activity. It is a time bomb waiting to explode, as men and women's desires are supposed to be founded in love, it does not make sense to place them in a situation where genitalia are exposed in front of the opposite sex. I feel as if some people who aren't transgender are going to abuse the rule and seek pleasure where pleasure is to be wrongly had, and that causes moral damage beyond the political controversy. 

If you think that people would be overcome by lust if they see genetalia of the opposite sex, you have been watching far too much pornography.

Haha!! You think I watch porn? Heck no! I understand though that as humans, we see sex as good and virtuous, but other people may try to use an opportunity to use it otherwise. There are too many rape cases that go against your argument here.

WilliamSchulz

someone234 said:

@WilliamSchulz if it's consensual why is it wrong or are you referring to trans women overpowering cis women?

Even consensual sex is bad because it occurs outside the confines of marriage. Marriage ensures that you have made a lifelong commitment to the person that you wholly and undivided love. Consensual sex outside of marriage is the opposite, in fact, it uses the person to strip their dignity, because outside of marriage, there is no commitment or promise of faithfulness, solely pleasure.

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

If anyone wants to say that there are just two sexes/genders, fine, it's one way to think. I am not too good at the biological aspect of it at all, so I'd prefer resorting to something else. A bit more personal. Anyone hear who thinks that there are two sexes/genders (forgive me if I phrase that wrong) that has MET a transgender person? Have you LISTENED to their side? Have you went up to them and asked about it before? Because, me? I have. I have friends who are full admittance of being trans. The honest truth is, they work so hard to be the gender that they choose. They feel it and know it. They go through a LOT of trouble to get it done. I highly doubt they act any less normal in bathrooms and society in general than anyone else. They are human like the rest of us and really, looking at them, it'd be hard to argue against what they say they feel. The ones who feel like a guy or girl, really do usually look like them anyways and it's only so many times they'd be questioned for it because they have a huge commitment to that feeling. Really, in general, I'd argue that gender is social construct. How long has society told us that men are like this and women are like that? Isn't it about time people put a middle finger to that and be who they want? Is that not true 100% FREEDOM? If I am a boy and I like dolls, let me play with dolls in peace! Women already are doing the "man" things like serving in the military and playing sports, so why can't guys do vice versa without trouble? (And no doubt, women STILL struggle to do these things and get proper recognition! )

WilliamSchulz

SlanderIsNotDebate1995 said:

If anyone wants to say that there are just two sexes/genders, fine, it's one way to think. I am not too good at the biological aspect of it at all, so I'd prefer resorting to something else. A bit more personal. Anyone hear who thinks that there are two sexes/genders (forgive me if I phrase that wrong) that has MET a transgender person? Have you LISTENED to their side? Have you went up to them and asked about it before? Because, me? I have. I have friends who are full admittance of being trans. The honest truth is, they work so hard to be the gender that they choose. They feel it and know it. They go through a LOT of trouble to get it done. I highly doubt they act any less normal in bathrooms and society in general than anyone else. They are human like the rest of us and really, looking at them, it'd be hard to argue against what they say they feel. The ones who feel like a guy or girl, really do usually look like them anyways and it's only so many times they'd be questioned for it because they have a huge commitment to that feeling. Really, in general, I'd argue that gender is social construct. How long has society told us that men are like this and women are like that? Isn't it about time people put a middle finger to that and be who they want? Is that not true 100% FREEDOM? If I am a boy and I like dolls, let me play with dolls in peace! Women already are doing the "man" things like serving in the military and playing sports, so why can't guys do vice versa without trouble? (And no doubt, women STILL struggle to do these things and get proper recognition! )

Interesting points, but we need to make some distinctions in your arguments. Your point relies on choice of a person and issues unrelated to gender. How? Let me explain.

You mention that "they work hard to be the gender that they choose." End of case here, because this is the key difference between defining people. Sex as in male / female is biological, whereas gender is a choice. I can feel like I want to make love with my blankets, but that does not change my masculinity. Because gender is a choice, it is not a proper way to define people. We define people based on their work occupations, social status, and popularity, but this can not be applied to something that is given biologically, as homo sapiens. We are defined by our sex, not by a choice, because even if I were to choose something absurd, that would not define me. A choice is subject to change, yet sex is permanent and can not be changed. That is why sex and gender are separate and that is why gender should not be considered a factor here. You bring up work in that women are doing equal work of men. Sure, but this has nothing to do with gender, this is women triumphing in the legal rights to work. It was because of their sex that they weren't allowed to work, not their gender. In addition, working status has nothing to do with gender. Because sex is biological and working status is a choice, the two do not correlate here. Thus, I disagree that gender is social construct, I believe it is a human choice that is subject to change, that does not adequately define the nature of a person biologically. Maybe it defines their feelings, but feelings are not what makes us distinct from an elephant, it is rationale and our biological structure as sexual human beings.

Fredsnephew

For goodness sake!

Stop obsessing about what people might or might not do in bathrooms.

WilliamSchulz

Fredsnephew said:

For goodness sake!

Stop obsessing about what people might or might not do in bathrooms.

We are not obsessing ourselves, we are simply stating like any philosophical argument that there are consequences of a trans bathroom law, and all considerations must be made off of human desire and previous instances of something similar happening.

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@WilliamSchulz Imagine if society decided boobs and vagina means a boy and and a penis and beard means a girl? Humans came up with all those labels. Along with those labels, humans came up with more labels. Of course, certain things have some scientific stuff backing it, like who we say are "boys" usually have more strength and certain aspects girls lack. And I feel like long ago, it was more true than now. Now, the human raced is so mixed up that I would never be surprised to find the personality, femininity, DNA traces of a girl that ends up in a male body or something like that. I do think there is more than just what we are assigned at birth. We can not compare to "love to a blanket" or some type of object to HUMANS. Humans are our own thing. This is specifically personality and I think we should be able to determine what our own personality is like. Remember, everything is a label that we made. We call everything something. And we went with the choice. And we can change it if we choose. While you can only do so much to change appearance, you can however, change what you want to be considered as. And it's not like people that want to be ducks or objects, but rather the other gender. That's all. Really, I support trans people. 100%. I think we are all humans and the woman or man part should not matter at all. We are too closely related for that. The entire human species is one species. Men and women are 50,000 times more alike than even our supposed ancestor, the monkey. Also, why compare this to animals like an elephant? It is entirely obvious we are not elephants and physically, there is just about no way to mold ourselves into having exact traits. Women and men are one as I've said, so it IS in fact possible. Men can in fact get certain hormones, molds, etc to be almost exactly like a woman and vice versa. Why don't you talk to somebody that is trans and ask questions? Several actually? Have you ever done that? You can't really judge them so much only hearing about them. Here are some sources, but if you can find any LGBTQA+ club around, definitely try to ask a bit. Most places, even rural, southern US, etc I would think have at least SOME people that are at least gay or bi. I lived in Texas, but still met quite a fair number. My ex is bi and I am queer myself and we were both in the LGBT club where we didn't exactly learn too much, (leader was quite the party animal ) but I did meet people I learned quite a bit from. Especially when it came to the trans issue. It was through experiences with this I started really shaping my own sexual philosophy even more. I firmly believe that a lot more people are at least queer than admitted. Really, just about everyone in some ways. Also a lot more people that are gay or bi than admitted. A LOT! Along with this, I think way more people would also be trans if society didn't give over-dramatic backlash to it.

https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.asp

someone234

WilliamSchulz said:

someone234 said:

@WilliamSchulz if it's consensual why is it wrong or are you referring to trans women overpowering cis women?

Even consensual sex is bad because it occurs outside the confines of marriage. Marriage ensures that you have made a lifelong commitment to the person that you wholly and undivided love.

Marriage ensures nothing other than legal difference in tax and, if there's no prenup and no will, that the partner is given the money and land not the children or other next of kin.

You have clearly had a very religious upbringing, so ask your parents how they know they are not gay if they've never tried it with another of their own gender? They only know they are straight because of the pleasure straight sex gave them.