Defending T and Q in LGBTQ? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

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!


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!

Defending T and Q in LGBTQ?

Opening Argument

There has been a strong rise in promotion of rights for the newly defined LGBTQ community.  I get the notion of LGB, as a sexual preference but really struggle with definitions with T (transgender) and Q (questioning) definition.  
If we argue that gender preference is biological then how can it be based on self-defined preference.  Where do we draw boundaries and some sort of legal framework.  It's not like changing hair color.  If we allow legal definition of Q then we can also start accepting people who identify themselves as different species too? For example, born human, but I really feel like a goat today.  Tomorrow I feel that I was really born as an eagle, and maybe next week as a lion.   Biology is biology, and if we say that defending the notion that people are actually born gay is one thing, but ability to change genders on a fly seem like a counterintuitive argument.
aarong
  1. Should T and Q be allowed in a legal framework?

    9 votes
    1. Yes
      44.44%
    2. No
      55.56%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Personally, I support the hetero agenda. #HeteroPride.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 537 Pts
    edited January 26
    You should be more inclusive.  They're up to LGBTIQCAPGNGFNBA and still growing.

    Personally, I'll stick with M or F.
    mrQuestion
  • Agree. I'm in the M & F camp too.

    Everything else is just socio-conceptual non-sense.
  • MedicMedic 163 Pts
    edited January 26
    There's two misconceptions taking place here which colour the understanding that we're attempting to construct.

    First, we're conflating sex and gender. Biological sex is what you're assigned at birth and indeed it's very much that case that this tends to remain constant throughout humanity - most cultures have some conception of male and female. However, gender isn't constant - looking at something like the Navajo people [1] tends to show up different conclusions with regard to gender - and the understanding of gender most sociologists have is that it's the social and societal expectation that we lay on individuals because of their biological sex - the idea of masculinity is predicated upon male or female sex organs. Because this idea differs from population to population, the only thing that we can conclude is that gender is a socially and societally constructed thing.

    Second, we're making the mistake of thinking it's easy to come out and be accepted as transgender - it is indeed not at all like changing hair colour. It's a process that is very difficult for most individuals.

    Now that we've dealt with these misfounded assumptions, let's deal with the key subject of this - the legal structure of T and Q within society. First off, the ideal of Q is very much different to T - Q tends to refer to those who don't feel themselves to fit into the other categories and therefore categorise themselves as a more general grouping. Consider that all legislation intended to benefit transgender individuals will benefit a tiny minority of the population (less than 0.1% in most countries) whilst not affecting others at all. Consider the example of putting down "X" for your gender on a passport - there won't be any adverse affects at all to a huge majority while positively affecting a tiny minority. This is known as a pareto improvement (in social choice theory, a fascinating field I highly recommend you read into if you're interested).

    With more specific cases they'd have to be handled on a case by case basis but the rationale presented on the part of Neg is weak.


    1.)https://othersociologist.com/2013/09/09/two-spirit-people/


    (note: some more radical than me would argue that sex is a social construct due to some rather interesting linguistic arguments but I'm not sure I buy them)
    Pogue

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • Medic said:
    There's two misconceptions taking place here which colour the understanding that we're attempting to construct.

    First, we're conflating sex and gender. Biological sex is what you're assigned at birth and indeed it's very much that case that this tends to remain constant throughout humanity - most cultures have some conception of male and female. However, gender isn't constant - looking at something like the Navajo people [1] tends to show up different conclusions with regard to gender - and the understanding of gender most sociologists have is that it's the social and societal expectation that we lay on individuals because of their biological sex - the idea of masculinity is predicated upon male or female sex organs. Because this idea differs from population to population, the only thing that we can conclude is that gender is a socially and societally constructed thing.

    Second, we're making the mistake of thinking it's easy to come out and be accepted as transgender - it is indeed not at all like changing hair colour. It's a process that is very difficult for most individuals.

    Now that we've dealt with these misfounded assumptions, let's deal with the key subject of this - the legal structure of T and Q within society. First off, the ideal of Q is very much different to T - Q tends to refer to those who don't feel themselves to fit into the other categories and therefore categorise themselves as a more general grouping. Consider that all legislation intended to benefit transgender individuals will benefit a tiny minority of the population (less than 0.1% in most countries) whilst not affecting others at all. Consider the example of putting down "X" for your gender on a passport - there won't be any adverse affects at all to a huge majority while positively affecting a tiny minority. This is known as a pareto improvement (in social choice theory, a fascinating field I highly recommend you read into if you're interested).

    With more specific cases they'd have to be handled on a case by case basis but the rationale presented on the part of Neg is weak.


    1.)https://othersociologist.com/2013/09/09/two-spirit-people/


    (note: some more radical than me would argue that sex is a social construct due to some rather interesting linguistic arguments but I'm not sure I buy them)
    Your attempt to deal with misfounded assumptions is based on a misfounded assumption.  They don't ask what your gender is on a DS-11 Application for a US passport, they don't ask what your gender is on a California form DL-44 Drivers License or Identification Card Application, etc., they ask what sex the applicant is.  This avoids the whole gender identity crisis mess. 
  • MedicMedic 163 Pts
    Thanks, CDY, I didn't actually know that! I'm not opposed to being asked for biological sex at birth at all whatever, and I agree, I think that's a good way to avoid the issue.

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • edited January 26
    @Medic as far as legal grouping goes, every single L I know doesn't care to be grouped with G's, much less Qs and Ts. They see them as freaks, sexual perverts.

    It would be like a hetero being grouped with cuckolds. They're different animals altogether.

    IMO, there should be no definition of any laws made. All laws apply equally to everybody, period.
  • MedicMedic 163 Pts
    The anecdotal evidence that you provide seems to me to be really weak evidence for this. Laws don't work like you propose - they don't not equally apply to everyone, they apply to everyone. Some people are affected by them differently. It's like making a law that poor people ought to receive a dollar a day. It still applies to someone who isn't poor, but just doesn't affect them.

    >It would be like a hetero being grouped with cuckolds. They're different animals altogether
    if I'm honest I don't buy this appeal to "rationality". Grouping really doesn't come into it at all and this odd focus on "heteros" is a bit strange and doesn't help your argument a whole lot.

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • @Medic In the example you give, the law only applies to poor people. A law that gave everyone a dollar a day would apply to everyone equally. Laws that apply only to any special interest group are unconstitutional under the fair and equal clause. LGBTQ's or women's reproductive rights are only two groups who have special consideration under the law.

    As far as my focus on heteros, I support the hetero agenda.

    #HeteroPride.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch