Time to lose some rating, I guess.

Transitioning means social transition and being given gender care approved by doctors and by parents, and wanted by kid.

Round 1

1 of 2

SatanLucy

Pro #1

Lex Talionis (eye for eye, equal return...) is a principle which says that any ability given to one person must be given to all. For example, you couldnt reasonably defend that you have right to take my freedom away randomly while I dont have right to take yours away randomly.

What does this mean?

Abilities such as:

A. Ability to determine truth

B. Ability to determine moral truth

C. Ability to determine what is sufficient justification

Think about what this means in case of body ownership.

There are only two options:

1. Person can determine when other people lose body ownership

2. Person cannot determine when other people lose body ownership

Should 2 be given to one person, it would be given to all, and no contradiction would follow.

But if 1 were to be given to one person, per Lex Talionis, it would be given to all.

But then, a contradiction follows. If everyone has ability to deny everyone of body ownership, then no one can have body ownership.

Likewise, it doesnt matter which justification person uses to deny body ownership. The ability to determine sufficient justification would per Lex Talionis likewise be universal. So anyone could for any reason deny body ownership of anyone.

Because 1 is objectively false, only 2 can be true: person cannot determine when other people lose body ownership.

Because no one can take away body ownership from others, it follows that everyone has body ownership.This includes trans kids. In other words, they own their bodies, and thus can make modifications to their bodies at will.So if doctor approves, and parents provide money for surgery, it is not possible to logically deny trans kids of surgery.

Theorem: Body Ownership is logically Inalienable

Axioms / Principles

Principle of Equal Powers (PEP): Any ability given to one person must, by fairness, be given to all.

Types of Abilities: PEP covers all abilities.

Among the abilities covered by PEP are:

a. The ability to determine truth.

b. The ability to determine moral truth.

c. The ability to determine what counts as sufficient justification.

Definition of Ownership: To own X means no one else may rightfully remove X from the owner.

Proof Step 1. Consider body ownership.

There are two possible assignments of ability:

Case A: A person has the ability to decide when others lose body ownership.

Case B: A person does not have that ability.

Step 2. Suppose Case A is true.Then, by PEP, if one person can decide a justification for stripping body ownership, all people must have the same ability.

Step 3. If all people can decide what counts as sufficient justification, then: For any reason whatsoever, anyone could declare another person’s body ownership void. Since this ability is universal, everyone can simultaneously void everyone else’s ownership.

Step 4. If everyone can void everyone else’s ownership, then secure body ownership does not exist.

Contradiction: “ownership” cannot exist if no one can securely hold it (by Axiom 3).

Step 5. Therefore, Case A is impossible.

Step 6. By elimination, only Case B remains: no one has the ability to decide when others lose body ownership.

Step 7. From Case B, it follows that body ownership is inalienable: each person necessarily owns their own body, and this cannot be revoked by others.

Corollary: Application to Trans Kids

Ownership of one’s body includes authority to decide what to do with it, including medical choices. Denying a trans child the right to make medical decisions about their body would mean granting others the ability to decide when body ownership can be overridden. By the proof above, such a power cannot be selectively granted; if granted at all, it must be universal, which destroys ownership. Therefore, denying trans kids’ medical decisions on body ownership grounds is logically impossible.

From this, 3 axioms follow:

Any justification my opponent uses to deny kids of body ownership must likewise include: A. Ability to deny body ownership, B. Ability to determine what counts as sufficient justification.
Any justification my opponent uses can likewise be made invalid by anyone who also has ability to determine sufficient justification, but can also be extended further to justify taking ownership of all by anyone who has ability to determine sufficient justification.
Should my opponent extend his argument to include "ability to determine who has ability", such would likewise be universal, and would yield self-contradiction.

Conclusion:

It is not logically possible to determine who has ability to deny body ownership of others, thus no one has such ability. Thus, all people own their bodies, and this includes trans kids.

SomeDebatePerson

Con #2

First up your entire reasoning on “transitioning” is based on nonsense.

Insofar as [someone] thinks he is female when he is biologically a male, he denies the connection between his biological sexual form and his gender identity. That is to say, he thinks his biological maleness doesn’t indicate his gender identity. But at the same time, he seeks a connection between his gender identity and biological sexual form insofar as he identifies with and seeks to take on the female form to match his female gender identity. - The Illogic of Transgenderism, Karlo Broussard

“Lex Talionis (eye for eye, equal return...) is a principle which says that any ability given to one person must be given to all.”

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Pro has continuously brought up body ownership, but body ownership is complex topic. Humans do not “own” their bodies in the same when they own property. This basically makes slavery legal except you can only own yourself. I would also argue that mutiliating oneself is not a right. It is not right to let people harm themselves.

Children cannot always make decisions on their own. There is a reason why there is an age of consent. Children cannot make decisions about what they do with their genitals, whether during sex or “transitioning.” Also, we would not allow children have their arms or legs amputated just because they feel like it. Genital mutilation is harmful because urinating is essential to the body. Affecting the urinary system, even accidentally, could be very dangerous. The genitals are not something to mess with. They are very sensitive.

From Wikipedia:

Mutilation, by contrast, involves "the removal or irreparable disfigurement, by any means, of some smaller portion of one of those larger sections of a living or dead person. The latter would include castration (removal of the testicles), evisceration (removal of the internal organs), and flaying (removal of the skin).

A joint statement released by the United Nations and numerous other international bodies opposes female genital mutilation.

Also, many kids could be simply pressured into transitioning due to society. It’s funny when people say kids might be pressured into being straight from society but are really gay on the inside. But when it comes to the other side, there is said to be no way there is pressure to transition.

A final argument against transitioning is that it cannot be undone. A child would have to accept there is no going back. A child should not be allowed to make a life-changing decision like this, especially considering that 80% of children outgrow gender confusion.

Protect the children!

Round 2

2 of 2

SatanLucy

Pro #3

Insofar as [someone] thinks he is female when he is biologically a male, he denies the connection between his biological sexual form and his gender identity... But at the same time, he seeks a connection between his gender identity and biological sexual form insofar as he identifies with

What is the contradiction here? Someone can say his gender identity doesnt match his biological sex, and at the same time seek to match it more by changing biological sex.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

No, an eye for eye makes the offender pay the reasonable price for offense.

Humans do not “own” their bodies

Either person owns his own body, or someone else owns him. So if latter, who gets to own whom?

Children cannot always make decisions on their own

So who gets to decide? If children cant decide, then someone else must make that decision, and no case was made by opponent for who that someone is.

Also, many kids could be simply pressured into transitioning due to society

My opponent has it backwards. His position is that "children shouldnt be allowed". In other words, the only position which must defend pressure and force is his.

A child should not be allowed to make a life-changing decision like this

Children constantly make life-changing decisions. From crossing the road to choosing their education, to choosing to obey laws which in most countries apply to them and children are in most cases subject to legal prison punishments if they break the law because children are legally considered responsible for their actions, even in USA and Europe. So unless my opponent wants to argue that choosing ways of crossing the road which can result in death isnt a life altering decision, or that choosing to study poorly isnt a life altering decision, or that choosing to disobey law isnt a life altering decision, or that choosing diet, religion, friendships, dangerous activities isnt a life altering decision, he has no case here. But to argue that obvious life altering decisions arent life altering is in itself a self defeating claim.

So my opponent would have to argue that children shouldnt be allowed to cross roads not even with adult's presence because even that can be life altering (no country on Earth has such law or custom), that it should be banned for them to study poorly (no country has this law or custom either), that children should have strictly regulated diets (no country has this), that children should be either somehow banned from breaking the law either allowed to break the law with no consequences as the only way to prevent life altering decisions for them (impossible to implement).

So if my opponent's argument is:

P1. Children cannot make any life-altering decisions

P2. Crossing the road, breaking the law, studying poorly..ect. are life-altering decisions

C. Children cannot cross the road, break the law, study poorly...ect.

Reason why conclusion is absurd is because we start from absurd premise, which is P1.

If we likewise altered argument to this:

P1. Children should be prevented from making all life-altering decisions

P2. Crossing the road, studying poorly, breaking the law...ect. are all life altering decisions.

C. Children should be prevented from crossing the road, studying poorly, breaking the law...ect.

As we can see, such conclusion is likewise absurd. No country on Earth bans children from crossing the road, studying poorly, and no country on Earth has effective system which can prevent a child from breaking the law if child decides so.

So all these life altering decisions are still contingent on child's decisions.

Children indeed must make life altering decisions, so the claim that they cant or shouldnt be allowed, must be false by contradiction.

But another problem is:

"Decision making ability improves with being granted ability to make decisions, if decision making ability depends on experience, which it does."

Not much to disagree with here. A child banned from crossing the road would likewise never learn how to cross the road. In this sense, it is not possible to ban child from making some decision, and at the same time not degrade the very decision making ability of the child.

But granting the decision making ability to children forces adults to inform children much more.

especially considering that 80% of children outgrow gender confusion.

Regret rate for transitioning is 1% and social transitioning is reversible, but we dont deny US citizens of elections just because they have high regret rate after almost every election.

Since no counter argument was made against body ownership, and any justification for taking away body rights must include ability to decide sufficient justification, the problem still remains:

If you think someone has ability to take away body rights, then everyone must have ability to take away body rights, and thus no body rights exist and no one has any rights.

No system was presented by opponent which decides who has such power.

SomeDebatePerson

Con #4

“What is the contradiction here? Someone can say his gender identity doesnt match his biological sex, and at the same time seek to match it more by changing biological sex.”

Pro seems to be missing the point. If gender is so unconnected to sex that you can have male genitalia while mentally be female, why do you somehow need to alter your male genitalia to look female?

“No, an eye for eye makes the offender pay the reasonable price for offense.”

I am not seeing what this has to do with the debate. I also think pro claims to believe in “an eye for an eye” but not really practice it in principle. Ultimately, the world probably wouldn’t be able to last long if “an eye for an eye” was used as revenge instead of trying to prevent harm or punish people.

“So who gets to decide? If children cant decide, then someone else must make that decision, and no case was made by opponent for who that someone is.”

Ever heard of the age of consent, buddy? Children obvious cannot make every decision about their bodies.

“My opponent has it backwards. His position is that "children shouldnt be allowed". In other words, the only position which must defend pressure and force is his.”

I was mainly trying to get at the possibility that the culture is telling them to transition. How do you prove that the child is actually doing the transition out of free will and wise decision making?

“Children constantly make life-changing decisions. From crossing the road to choosing their education, to choosing to obey laws which in most countries apply to them and children are in most cases subject to legal prison punishments if they break the law because children are legally considered responsible for their actions, even in USA and Europe. So unless my opponent wants to argue that choosing ways of crossing the road which can result in death isnt a life altering decision, or that choosing to study poorly isnt a life altering decision, or that choosing to disobey law isnt a life altering decision, or that choosing diet, religion, friendships, dangerous activities isnt a life altering decision, he has no case here. But to argue that obvious life altering decisions arent life altering is in itself a self defeating claim.”

There is a lot of problem with pro’s reasoning. First, calling crossing the street “life-changing” is misleading. Sure, crossing the street has a risk, but so does everything. Crossing the street usually has no effect on your life the same as transitioning. Second, education is required by law, so there is some legal aspect to education. Third, not studying for school is a bad analogy. Parents and guardians have the right to make sure their kids to good in school. Failing school makes you have to redo.

“Regret rate for transitioning is 1% and social transitioning is reversible, but we dont deny US citizens of elections just because they have high regret rate after almost every election.”

This number seems sus. Why do 80% of children outgrow gender confusion, but 1% that go through the transition don’t regret it? Plus, you must factor in the risk and benefit to see if it’s even worth the risk. 1% is still pretty high.

Let’s compare these numbers to other things:

24% regret rate for tatoos

25% mild regret and 26% mild-to-severe regret for knee surgery

35% of women and 20% of men regret casual sex

Doing things to your body in these cases has decent regret rates.

The idea of social pressure would make sense in transitioning. They are pressured into thinking they need to keep it, but if they never had it, they would learn to get over it.

Even none-surgery transitioning can be dangerous. Plus, factor in the pyschological dangers of thinking you are trapped in the wrong body. Also, socially transitioning might make the kid want to get surgery transition

Euthanasia is an example of something illegal, at least to a certain degree at this day, because body ownership is more complex than pro wants it to be.

If body ownership is already a complex legal issue, how much more complex does it become for those who cannot truly determine what their desire for their body is and if this transition cannot be undone?

Children should not be allowed to transition because of the physical, psychological, and legal issues.

SatanLucy

tho some good votes would be nice

NordMan009

SomeDeabtePerson tries to respond, but their personal feelings come through way too much. SatanLucy won this.

SatanLucy

--> @SomeDebatePerson

Yes, so if you lose, you lose like 40 ratings, and if you win, you win like 2 rating.

SomeDebatePerson

--> @SatanLucy

Just realized I’m debating the person at the bottom of the leaderboard.

Hyper

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Start with Pro's arguments:

The main argument is that people have ownership of their bodies, and not being allowed to transition is a denial of ownership. The justification for this is based on the idea that selectively denying anyone ownership of their bodies is logically contradictory by principles of what is considered fair.

By the end of the debate, the key points of clash regarding this are twofold. First, Con argues that denying the right to self-harm ought to be preferred over a an inherent right to body ownership. Second, Con argues that ownership, in the context of being able to make decisions regarding something, cannot be bestowed on someone who doesn't understand the responsibilities of that ownership.

Pro's responses to both retains some ground.

First, they give an argument that denying ownership to oneself implicitly gives ownership to another, which, while not particularly convincing, is mostly conceded by Con. Second, they also argue that kids are already given ownership over themselves in many aspects of daily lives, and this is culturally acceptable. Con pushes back fairly well on this by pointing out how transitioning is unique, which I'll touch upon in my analysis of Con's arguments.

Overall, by the end of the debate, Pro's ground largely comes from the idea that banning transitioning is, to a reasonable extent, a denial of ownership.

Going onto Con's arguments:

C1 is that children can't make decisions like these for themselves. The warranting for this fairly light - it's based mostly on age of consent, as well as the idea that autonomy allows self-harm - but given that Pro never really addresses this, it's a solid point for Con and mitigates a lot of Pro's arguments regarding autonomy.

C2 is that transitioning is harmful. This goes dropped by the Pro.

C3 is that transitioning can be a result of social pressure. This doesn't mean a lot on its own, many things are done due to social pressure and it's never quantified, but I buy that this strengthens C2. This effectively goes dropped by the Pro.

C4 is that transitioning is irreversible, which strengthens C2 and works fairly well with C3 in terms of transitioning having the potential for unique problems. This goes dropped by the Pro. There's an additional arg about children outgrowing gender dysphoria, but no source is given so I'm not counting it.

C5 is that transitioning is illogical, though given that its never warranted what the impact of this is, it doesn't really factor into my weighing of the debate.

By the end of the debate, I mostly buy Con's arguments that for the sake of practicality, autonomy is not absolute and doesn't include the right to potential self-harm. And given that arguments on the harms of transitioning go uncontested by Pro, I factor those in as well.

Now, going onto the overall evaluation of the debate:

The Pro's argument for ownership being a good value to uphold is largely mitigated by the Con's arguments by the idea that preventing harms outweighs autonomy. Even if I buy the Pro's argument to some extent, they don't give me any clear argument for why denying ownership is bad beyond being unfair, which is a fairly intangible value.

In contrast, the Con's arguments about the potential harms of transitioning are upheld by the end of the debate. Faced between a limited amount of unfairness with no tangible impact, vs conceded real-life harms, I vote for the Con.

Good debate, I enjoyed reading it. If either of you have questions about my vote, I'll be happy to clarify anything.

Trans kids should be allowed to transition

Round 1

Protect the children!

Round 2

Children should not be allowed to transition because of the physical, psychological, and legal issues.

New comment