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

Vaulk

I'll wager in on that one.  I wouldn't ever qualify as an expert but I have extensive experience in Federal and State forms from Departments of transportation, health services, security, personnel services and several others.  The identifying block for Sex in general is in fact listed as "Sex", not "Gender" and certainly not "Sex or Gender".  

I'd venture as far as to say that even in today's society, the vast majority usage of the term "Gender" is in birthing wards at hospitals where almost 4 million times a year across the U.S. you will hear the question from Nurses, "Do you know the gender of the baby"?  

Never ever forget that the people pushing the multiple gender issue are the absolute smallest minority in the U.S....they're nothing compared to the numbers of the big interest groups except they're louder than most everyone else.  The practice of intentionally misleading people to believe that their ideology is supported by the "Majority" or that they represent "Most people's opinion" is a slick tactic being used on multiple fronts.  

TheShaun

@whiteflame
Everything I've stated is based on either statistics, psychology, or sociology. If you doubt any of my statements then you are free to search for information that confirms them. I spent decades accumulating the information and I do not have hours of free time to look up everything again for you. Also, in order to avoid any bias, manipulated, or false information, I always suggest people do their own research.

whiteflame

TheShaun said:

@whiteflame
Everything I've stated is based on either statistics, psychology, or sociology. If you doubt any of my statements then you are free to search for information that confirms them. I spent decades accumulating the information and I do not have hours of free time to look up everything again for you. Also, in order to avoid any bias, manipulated, or false information, I always suggest people do their own research.

1) That's not how debate works. To ask me to do the research required to justify your position is absurd to the absolute extreme. They are your assertions, they presumably are backed by material you've read on the matter, and as of now, they stand solely as assertions without support. It's not up to me to do extensive research on the matter until I come around to your opinion on the matter, it's up to you to convince me that you're right. If you don't want to take the time to do so, that's up to you, but it leaves your argument as little more than a set of claims.

2) If you spent decades accumulating this information, it shouldn't take you more than a few minutes to dig up one or two sources that support your assertions. We have this thing called the Internet with these things called search engines that provide meaningful access to a variety of research. That's how I've found my sources, and even if your sources aren't immediately available in full online, you should be able to find excerpts or at least quotes that support your arguments. I've taken the time to research my position and present to you the research I've used because it matters to me that you know where my views are coming from. You might view those as biased, but at least they're separate from personal anecdotes. At least they're verifiable in some other form than assertion. If you feel it's not worth the time, then why are you bothering engaging in this debate at all? Why bother spending any time engaging in a debate if you're not going to do the bare minimum when it comes to trying to convince others that you are right?

3) You suggest I do my own research. I've presented you with 4 polls from entirely separate sources supporting a different view from the one you're presenting. They all contradict your claim. What I've read previously on this matter is consistent with these. If you're correct that decades of information are out there that readily support your position, why am I coming up with a litany of data that disagrees with you? Based on my own research that you're encouraging me to do, you're wrong. And if your response to all this is to say that it's all biased, then that's all the more reason to a) explain why they're biased and counter the information in my sources, and b) present your own unbiased (obviously) sources. You're not helping your case by encouraging me to research it.

TheShaun

@MayCaesar
Both CYDdharta and Vaulk covered your major objection. So, I will deal with your minor objection. There are many words in the English language that have the same meaning as another while both are still used. For example: drink and beverage, contusion and bruise, hyper and energetic, tired and exhausted. It's actually so common that we have a word for them (synonyms) and books devoted to them (thesaurus).

TheShaun

@MayCaesar
Both CYDdharta and Vaulk covered your major objection. So, I will deal with your minor objection. There are many words in the English language that have the same meaning as another while both are still used. For example: drink and beverage, contusion and bruise, hyper and energetic, tired and exhausted. It's actually so common that we have a word for them (synonyms) and books devoted to them (thesaurus).

Vaulk

Agreed, 

This isn't how debate works.  We don't get to make conclusions with premises based on statistics without having to justify them upon request.  If someone determines that your information is credible and doesn't ask for it...fine...this is a casual debate site and it happens quite frequently.  That said, if someone DOES ask for sources or asks where you're getting your information from...you CANNOT under ANY circumstances justify your claims by saying that you don't have time to cite them and that the burden of proof lies with someone else to disprove your statistics.

You sir are out of line and are not adhering to the debating method.  I suppose you're entitled to do that but we are equally entitled to ignore those who debate irrationally and without respect to the method.

TheShaun

@whiteflame
1. This isn't the debate club at a highschool. I'm not bound by any rules other than the rules enforced by this website. Also, my purpose is not to convince you of anything. That would likely be a waste of time since so many people online refuse to accept defeat even when 100% proven wrong. My purpose is to inform the readers of information they may not have been aware of before. Even with sources being provided, I suggest everyone do some research themselves in order to be sure of accuracy. I'm only giving them suggestions on areas to look into.

2. Wrong. Most information I've accumulated was through sources outside the internet and the entirety of information I possess on the topic is a vast amount. More information requires more time to find. I literally do not have the time to spare. Since I'm not as familiar with the internet as you are, it would be much faster for you to locate it yourself. Also, informing you of concepts you haven't considered before is the bare minimum. Hours of searching is extensive.

3. Of course feminists are going to claim they have more support than they do. That's part of their method of operation. I expect you to avoid sources that are feminist ran or bias in favor of feminism. You're specifically looking for only information that agrees with you instead of searching for the actual truth. Just paying attention to the people you encounter will confirm the inaccuracy of the polls you used. Feel free to even ask them. You'll see that most people do not agree with the modern feminism narrative. Make sure you specify which part of feminism we are talking about. Of course most people agree with the old school feminism. It's the crazy, hateful, manipulative, lying, thin skinned, violent version of feminism(modern) that most do not agree with.

whiteflame

@TheShaun

This isn't about rules. It's not about me forcing you to do anything because you're not forced to take any given action. However, when your entire argument is based on the notion that you know something because you've done decades of research into it, and when you're claiming that all of my sources and information are flawed simply because they disagree with that research, you're essentially abdicating any responsibility when it comes to actually supporting your case in favor of what amounts to little more than the promise of support. You say you know precisely how the vast majority of the English-speaking population views the word gender, yet all you've done is speak for them and assert that you know based on evidence you refuse to present. If your purpose is really "to inform the readers of information they may not have been aware of before", I've got news for you: you're doing a terrible job. You're informing readers of your view on the subject and nothing else. 

And now you've taken that a step further, arguing that simply because we are online, others would refuse to accept your argument no matter how well supported it is. I'm telling you now: if you presented verifiable sources that supported your argument and actually showed what you are claiming they do show, then I would take them seriously. Just because you don't trust me or others to care enough to actually take your sources seriously doesn't mean we won't.  If your sources are all outside the Internet, then they're probably books or research articles, many of which have at least excerpts posted online, though I suppose asking you to do the bare minimum of actually checking to see if those exist is too much (and you clearly do have time to spare, otherwise we wouldn't still be talking). But it doesn't even sound like that's what you're basing this view on, as you repeatedly refer to anecdote as evidence. You cannot claim what a majority, let alone a vast majority, of people think based on talking to a few people you meet on the street. 

Your suggestion to explore the Internet isn't helping because, as I've now said multiple times, the polls I'm finding present very different data from what you assert exists. You keep claiming bias in all of my sources, yet the only basis you've used to do so is a blatant genetic fallacy. Just because you think the websites are biased doesn't mean that the polls themselves are. As it seems that the sole basis for your treating these sources as biased appears to be that they disagree with you, you're doing a pretty poor job of supporting the notion that they are biased in any sense. More importantly, because you aren't presenting a single source that supports your opinion, your argument takes bias to a whole new level. You have no data, no support, nothing. Even if my sources are slanted, at least they're using something verifiable. At least we can assess the validity of their data by analyzing the questions they posed and the subset of the population they polled. How can we analyze your views? You clearly have a lot of problems with feminism, but you're letting those issues bleed into the question at hand, and it's quite clear that your strong opinions are part of the reason that you're arguing this way.

Look, at the end of the day, this discussion really doesn't matter. You know you're right. Whether that's because you have strong opinions on the matter or because it's coming from some as yet unknown set of sources, you clearly believe what you're selling. If all you came on here to do was post your views on the matter and leave it to us to decide, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Maybe you don't believe it, but I actually like hearing about opinions different from my own, and I'm particularly interested in where people derive those opinions from. It's led to a lot of good discussions on this site and elsewhere. Maybe you just don't care enough to have one or maybe you're really and truly so bereft of time that you can't spare the 30 minutes required to do the same thing you're asking me to do, but either way, why are you still here? You either don't have the time or the will to support your views, so why do you have the time and the will to keep asserting that that support exists?

Sonofason

TheShaun said:

@MayCaesar
Both CYDdharta and Vaulk covered your major objection. So, I will deal with your minor objection. There are many words in the English language that have the same meaning as another while both are still used. For example: drink and beverage, contusion and bruise, hyper and energetic, tired and exhausted. It's actually so common that we have a word for them (synonyms) and books devoted to them (thesaurus).

Interestingly, many of your examples of synonyms that you have given show an interesting relationship that I'd like to bring attention to.  In some cases, a word like drink can be used as a noun that is a thing, or it can be a noun that is an activity, yet its synonym beverage cannot.  A beverage is always a thing, and not an activity.  I can bruise someone, but I cannot contusion them.  I can have sex with someone, but I cannot have gender with someone.  

Is it not possible that the word gender is used when the speaker desires that there be no connotation to the act of sex?  If we are talking about gender alone, why would we want to imbue ideas about the act of having sex, when it can be avoided by using the word gender?

The problem lies with the fact that many words have multiple definitions.
Surely If I ask you what is your sex, it is no different than me asking your gender.  But simply by asking your sex, your mind can go to the act of having sex, and it would be clearer and more direct if I were to ask your gender, sidestepping any possible means for the listener to misconstrue my question, or to have thoughts that I did hot intend for them to have.

TheShaun

@whiteflame
Now you're just resorting to an attack on my character and methods. The truth is the truth regardless of how I present my case or your feelings towards it. If you actually care to know what the truth is, then go research it and avoid any sources that are associated with feminism or give even the slightest indication of favoritism towards any side. I have limited time to myself (usually only weekends) and I'm not spending majority of my time providing citations that you can most likely find quicker yourself. I am not internet savvy and it would take me hours to locate every single piece of information that proves my point. And yes, EVERY piece of information is required to be calculated into the equation simultaneously in order to ensure accuracy. Your choices are to either trust my honesty or research it yourself. If you refuse to do either, then you are not the caliber of person that I care about the thoughts, opinions, feelings, or beliefs of. I suspect you will never do either. So, we are done here because I have more useful things to use my time on. Have a nice day.

whiteflame

@TheShaun

The only attacks I’ve levied are against things you’ve specifically done or admitted to doing. You pretend to know a great deal, ascribe that knowledge to nebulous, unverifiable research you claim to have done into sources you claim are unbiased, state that that knowledge requires a tremendous amount of interconnected data in order to fully understand, state that it’s not available online, and tell me to go out and find it to prove your point. Does that about summarize what you’ve done here? Imagine if I responded by saying that I’ve read every poll, conducted several myself, and done extensive research into psychological literature showing that I’m right, and then refused to present any of that information to you? Would you accept that I know what I’m talking about? Would you trust me? 

I have researched it myself, and I have come to conclusions differing from yours based on that research. You can claim all you want that they’re biased (though you’re doing so fallaciously), and that I just need to do more research (though you admit that coming to your view requires committing to intensive and extensive work looking through materials that are not readily available), but all you’ve really done is state that any opinion that’s not yours is wrong and biased. I don’t know what you have been trying to do, but you come off as someone who cares not at all for engaging in a meaningful discussion. You seem more interested in calling out others on the basis that you know better than demonstrating that you do. If you don’t have time for this, then don’t bother. Just know that you’re right and keep it to yourself.

TheShaun

@whiteflame
I see you've made your choice. You chose neither. Instead you chose to strawman things I've said. I never said the information isn't available online, I said the location I personally found most of it wasn't online and that it would take too much time to locate all of it again through a resource I'm not savvy with, like the internet. I didn't say you had to search for the info to prove my point for me, I said you have to search to find the truth for yourself. Me searching again for the info would be to prove my point. I did not say that opinions specifically different from mine were bias, I said sources that align themselves with manipulative, hateful, violent groups like modern feminists are bias.

It's clear that you're not here to learn anything. You're here just to argue within some specific format as if it's a game. I'm not here to argue or play games. I'm here to shed light on information that some people might not be aware of so they can choose to examine it further if they actually care about knowing for sure what the truth is. It's up to each person whether they want to know the truth for sure or play the debate game. Since you chose the latter, I definitely am finished trying to speak to you. Especially since I've ran out of time for dealing with you. I'm sure you will respond again while once again manipulating my words and requesting for your expectations to be met. Feel Free. It will be ignore. Have fun and good luck with your game.

TheShaun

@Sonofason
The words I used that have multiple definitions are accepted by essentially everyone to have their multiple definitions. Only a minority accept personality as a definition for gender (typically, people associated with feminism).

The context in which a person uses the word "sex" indicates it's purpose. Anyone of average intelligence and above should have no issues telling the difference.

Sonofason

TheShaun said:

@Sonofason
The words I used that have multiple definitions are accepted by essentially everyone to have their multiple definitions. Only a minority accept personality as a definition for gender (typically, people associated with feminism).

Gender is not a synonym for the act of sex, it's a synonym for biological sex (the state of being either male or female). Also, the context in which a person uses the word "sex" indicates it's purpose. Anyone of average intelligence and above should have no issues telling the difference.

I agree with your assessment of the words that you gave as synonyms.  I do not accept gender to be in any way associated with personality.

Had you actually read my comment you would see that I never did say that gender is a synonym for the act of sex.  Anyone of average intelligence would also know that I did not say that gender was a synonym for the act of sex.  

So please reassess your comment to me, and get back to me when you actually understand my previous comments.  No disrespect intended here, but I perceive that your response is misdirected with regard to what I actually said.  

whiteflame

@TheShaun

You have never once pointed out that the information you have is available online. Not once. The single time you've referenced where the information that you personally acquired is located, you said it "was through sources outside the internet". This is the first and only time you've ever stated that any of the sources that you personally use are available online, let alone that I have access to them. You've mentioned multiple times that I could find information that supports your views online, but that is not necessarily the same information. 

As for what you've been advising me to do, you've been rather sketchy on it. Yes, you've told me to go "search to find the truth for" myself, but when I do go online to find the sources and I present them to you, you dismiss every single source I present without ever analyzing the validity of the polls. What that tells me is that you view any truth that conflicts with how you view the world as being false and biased. If all you do is dismiss any source I present based on your perception of its alignment, then you're choosing to disengage from the data and instead to simply dismiss all data that might come from a biased source. That's a textbook definition of a genetic fallacy. You're not encouraging me to go out and find the truth, you're encouraging me to dig up sources that agree with you. 

Lastly, you claim to know why I'm here. If you ask @Vaulk, you'll find that I'm more than amenable to arguments that disagree with my own views. This is nothing different in that regard. What I'm here to do is engage in fruitful discussion of an issue that I feel gets too focused on ideology and pulls away from the reality of how words affect people and why that should matter. This isn't a game, not to me (and if it was, what, exactly, would I be "winning"?). It's an opportunity for me to learn and amend my views. If your goal here was to "shed light on information that some people might not be aware of" then you're doing a poor job of it. You're not shedding light. You're telling people that the information exists somewhere, in the unending multitudes of pages on websites across the Internet, and that we should go out and find it. That's not shedding light. That doesn't tell people who disagree with you or people who don't know what to think anything new or interesting because all it does is present an opinion and claim that it's supported somewhere. You're doing nothing different than anyone who simply boasts that they know the answer to any question, except in your case, you're claiming that that answer is supported by data that you are clearly unwilling to provide. Shedding light requires more than just stating that something exists and playing Where's Waldo with the Internet. 

I honestly hope you don't respond because I want to believe that you really don't have time for this. I want to believe that you have decades worth of research on this topic that you're sitting on solely because you don't have the time to present any of that data, and don't have the time to throw away responding to some shmoe on a random debate site. I can't ever be certain of that, but it would be great to know that you actually care enough about the issue to have done all this, yet somehow not care enough to impart any of it except the conclusions to others. I've never known a researcher to ever have gone through decades of work like this coming down on a definitive result that defies a central dogma with clear support without wanting to get that information out to the masses. You would be the first.

TheShaun

@Sonofason
The alternate (feminist) definition of "gender" (the one not referring to biological sex) is referring to people's personality. What they think and feel that they are. I also agree that gender does not actually mean this. Hence the debate that just took place between whiteflame and I. They accept the feminist definition, I do not. Nor does majority.

I admit I had a bit to drink last night by time I read your response and also rushed through it a bit. It seems we agree on the usage of "gender". Though I do not agree that it's necessary to use "gender" instead of "sex" when referring to male or female. People know the difference between the definitions of "sex" based on the context in which it's used.