CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Sex is biological. Gender isn't. Even if gender and sex were both the same genetic phenomenon, sex is not binary so your male/man and female/woman model doesn't follow from your own rationale.
Sex is a referent to biological phenomena, ascribed on the basis of fixed genotypical and phenotypical attributes. Although it is commonplace to believe there are two sexes, science has long recognized more than two which seriously undercuts the credibility of a binary gender essentialist position like yours (since you require the existence of binary sex to conclude binary, sex-linked gender).
Gender is a referent to psychological phenomena. Although psychological states are biological conditions on a reductionist account (which I do hold), the psychological state is differentiable from genotypical and phenotypical condition by its unique condition of malleability. This malleability is a consequence of the psychological construct having as its referent a psychological phenomena, permitting the construct to influence the material psychological phenomena itself (whereas with sex the psychological construct has as its referent the fixed and non-psychological phenomena of genotype and phenotype which it cannot alter). Therefore, while ascription of gender is often guided by popular associations with conceptual understandings of sex those associations are not fixed in the way of genotype and phenotype. There is considerable cultural and temporal variability in gender concepts, which occurs precisely because gender is a purely psychological phenomena.
But, please, do feel free to bring your crude and underdeveloped essentialist narrative to bear against reason and science. I'm sure that will work out very well for the credibility of your position.
True, but the truth is the truth, asshole or not. At least you aren't that far gone. I'd give you points, but I don't want to because you are a snotty little clown, and we both know what I am.
You misunderstand the liberal terminology being used here. This discussion is about calling someone a certain gender. You can think you know what gender someone else is. That's the assumption being discussed. When liberals talk about assuming a gender they are talking about someone assuming they know the gender of someone else. In that case you might assume a man is a woman or a woman is a man if they dress/look a certain way.
You must not understand how science works. You just claimed something I did was scientifically impossible. You just witnessed the ability to assume someone's gender. You then denied it. You are an idiot.
The only reasons such protocol would exist is because the law enforcement agency that employs you as an officer has determined that it is most pursuant to the ends of law enforcement. Whether you think it is a waste of time in this scenario is as irrelevant as that opinion would be in upholding any other mandates of your office.
Moreover, the rationale for such protocol would be identical to protocol requiring you to wait for a female officer to search a female woman. The concern would be with the real and perceived safety of the person in question, as well as protecting the officer from wrongful allegations of assault. Therefore, your objection is unsound unless you also think waiting for a female officer to search females is a waste of time.
Lying on top of being an asshole. You aren't leaving me with a great impression of you. FYI, my original post was a line from the movie "The Big Lebowski".
There is no law saying you can't search a person you are arresting. Of course, you never said you were arresting the ladyman, so your search would be illegal anyway.
I never said I wasn't arresting them, I may have just witnessed them do something illegal, it was a hypothetical scenario you dickhead, I didn't realise it needed an entire back story.
Do you feel clever picking out cgi glitches in movies?
I notice you didn't address the relevant portion of my post. Namely that There is no law saying you can't search a person you are arresting. Male or female. Supposed or otherwise.
Police can search a male or female but a off duty police officer can't carry weapon on campus ? Confusion of you confused is absolutely entertaining LMAO !
"Do you think that a male officer has to wait on the side of the road for a strip search before making an arrest?"
Wtf you've gone so far off track, this is irrelevant to my initial point but i'll correct you anyway.
They can arrest them, but yes they must wait for a female officer to do a full search, up to the police if they want to wait there or do it at the station. There is fucking videos of this all over youtube you are just ignorant...
Also you do realise that you are arguing with me over a hypothetical scenario?...Stupid.
My point was to demonstrate that an officer assuming the gender of someone is quite reasonable given their job role the laws in place, you have not refuted this either.
"Do you think that a male officer has to wait on the side of the road for a strip search before making an arrest?"
Wtf you've gone so far off track, this is irrelevant to my initial point but i'll correct you anyway.
“So I'm a police officer walking down the street and I see an adult male in a dress,
Someone that I can quite clearly tell has balls as big as their adam's apple,
But I can't 'assume someone's gender', and now he tell's me that he's 'female'.
I must now wait and get a female officer on scene to search this fully grown man,
meanwhile other calls are coming in and I'm just stuck wasting time...”
You can’t seem to remember what you previously said. Who cares if you have to get a female to do a full search, that doesn’t need to happen on scene, which is my point. If you’re a cop and you see a person of questionable gender breaking the law, you can arrest them now, do a pat down, and find out later who needs to do the full search at the jail. You are not stuck wasting your time while other calls come in.
Also you do realise that you are arguing with me over a hypothetical scenario?...Stupid
Well, yeah. You used a stupid hypothetical scenario to make a point that doesn’t exist. Cops can assume gender or not. It doesn’t effect their ability to arrest.
"Well, yeah. You used a stupid hypothetical scenario to make a point that doesn’t exist. Cops can assume gender or not. It doesn’t effect their ability to arrest."
It effects their ability to search if they don't assume someone's gender, which has been my point from the start.
This could also lead to potential concealment or danger towards the officer, use your imagination dumb ass.
It's like you just want to argue about something so you started picking holes in a hypothetical scenario, talking about arrests you are just missing the fucking point simpleton.
Cops can do a pat down for safety purposes on men or women when they arrest someone. It doesn't matter the gender and it doesn't matter what they assume. Your hypothetical was stupid and your point is moot. If you want to make your point, that genders need to be assumed, find a better way to do it, because this hypothetical doesn't cut it. If you don't like people arguing with you for the sake of arguing, get off the website that's designed specifically for that purpose.
OMG! Seriously? Do you live in fucken fairy land or something?
My point from the start is that if a male police officer comes across a transvestite and does not assume their gender, they have limited powers to search, this could result in concealment and/or danger to the officer.
If you are not aware of this, or have the inability to use your imagination as to what these officers are facing every day, it is most likely because you are some yuppie from the burbs or an ignorant kid...
Your incredulity isn’t an argument. Nothing I said is incorrect. If it counters your position, then your position is wrong. Being incredulous won’t change that.
My point from the start is that if a male police officer comes across a transvestite and does not assume their gender, they have limited powers to search, this could result in concealment and/or danger to the officer
Your point from the start is still posted. You said “I must now wait and get a female officer on scene to search this fully grown man,
meanwhile other calls are coming in and I'm just stuck wasting time...”.
That’s simply not true.
The point that I have made consistently, and you have consistently avoided, is that no law prevents a male from arresting a female and doing the necessary search that goes with it.
If you are not aware of this, or have the inability to use your imagination as to what these officers are facing every day, it is most likely because you are some yuppie from the burbs or an ignorant kid...
Either way you're still wrong. Good work.
This strange kind of ad hominem isn’t valid or accurate. I know a number of police officers. I know how they work. That’s why I know that a trans man isn’t any greater risk to them than any person of any other gender regardless of whether cops assume gender or not. Cops will do the necessary search for their safety on anyone, with a more thorough search being done long after the arrest.
"Nothing I said is incorrect. If it counters your position, then your position is wrong. "
That is the most childish statement I have read on this site yet, and that says a lot, you seem pretty sure of yourself, but just ask yourself honestly, have you ever been wrong before?
"The point that I have made consistently, and you have consistently avoided, is that no law prevents a male from arresting a female and doing the necessary search that goes with it."
Yes there is! Male officers can do an over the clothes pat down and that is it! If they want to go any further they must have a female present. This could lead to danger to the officer or concealment, you are just wrong.
"Cops will do the necessary search for their safety on anyone, with a more thorough search being done long after the arrest."
Again, Male officers can do an over the clothes pat down and that is it! If they want to go any further they must have a female present. This could lead to danger to the officer or concealment, you are just wrong.
If you want to speak so 'matter of fact' then you should actually know what you are talking about.
I very much doubt you know any police officers if so then you clearly haven't known them very well...
That is the most childish statement I have read on this site yet
This statement hurts my feelings because I can tell it means you are obviously winning the debate with clear and concise reason. Solid hit.
have you ever been wrong before?
Sure. Just not while debating you.
Male officers can do an over the clothes pat down and that is it! If they want to go any further they must have a female present
If you say there is no god, that's a legit position. If someone says there is a god, they have to provide evidence. The onus of proof is on the person making the affirmative statement.
I cannot possibly show you the law that says there is no law to this effect. The reason I am able to speak so "matter of fact" about the subject is because it is a matter of actual fact which supports my position. I actually already know that there is no law that precludes an officer from doing the necessary search of an arrested person. There may be specific departments with policies that go further than law, but there is no law. I can say this with confidence, because I know that you will never be able to present the law to which you are referring, even if you weren't to lazy to try.
Reasonable suspicion gets a Terry pat down for everyone. Probable cause for arrest gets a search. This is not gender specific.
Now this debate is over and you have lost. The only way to revive it and win, is to provide the law that you claim exists. Better luck next time.
If you are not aware of the law's that exist in these circumstances
It doesn't exist. Perhaps you will believe it from a cop:
"Dave Grossi is a retired police lieutenant who for a dozen years was the lead instructor for the Calibre Press Street Survival Seminar. Grossi said ...that while there’s no law that says male officers can’t search a female subject, there are certainly some agency procedures that precludes it (absent exigent circumstances). “Some officers get really hung up on that,” Grossi said.
don't just say"You're wrong because I said so, now go waste your time enlightening my dumb ass"
I don't believe you will ever be in a position to enlighten me. You are wrong, not because I said so, but because there is no law for you to refer to. If you ask a cop or a lawyer, they won't show you where this law isn't in a law book, they will just tell you it isn't there. Just like I did.
'he tell's me that he's 'female'. I must now wait and get a female officer on scene to search this fully grown man'
"There is no law saying you can't search a person you are arresting"
As I have explained, ad nauseum, Male officers have LIMITED SEARCH powers on a female. You are wrong.
Are you just not getting this or?
'Perhaps you will believe it from a cop…Grossi said…”There is no law that says a male officer can’t search a female subject”
You just proved my point correct!'
"This sums it up, I think we are done here."
I'm not sure if you're just but hurt from the thrashing I gave you on the other thread, but all you have done is prove my initial argument correct...
I will break it down real simple for your dumb ass...
In a nutshell I said 'If a male officer doesn't assume gender they have limited powers to search'
You have even provided sources and quotes yourself that prove this correct and go on to point out that “Some officers get really hung up on that,” Grossi said.
What is even left to debate? You have proven my initial debate point correct yourself, we are just going round in circles now :)
There is no law. Some departments have policies that could make this an issue, but that does not make it a cop problem. That makes it a problem for a cop in that agency. Department policies are what some officers get hung up on.
I don't believe anyone can simoultaniously be this retarded while being capable of typing complete sentences. Thus, you are just a troll. You have never beaten me in a debate. I'm not sure you have ever even made a good point. You do like to claim it a lot though. Anyway, I thought we were done but apparently I had to explain that policies and laws are not the same thing. But I'm fairly sure we are actually done now.
Re-read my initial debate point, please, I never said there was, you are the one that had brought this up, you are just going round in a retarded circle.
"Some departments have policies that could make this an issue"
So you admit I am correct, also could you name any departments that don't follow this procedure or are you just pulling more stuff out of your ass...
"but that does not make it a cop problem."
Wtf does that statement even mean? Who are you to make that statement anyway? lol
"That makes it a problem for a cop in that agency."
So even going by your own retarded logic, that would therefor be a COP problem lmfao!
"Department policies are what some officers get hung up on." You, yourself even provided sources saying,
“Some officers get really hung up on that,” Grossi said." So you have admitted more than once and provided sources to prove that officers themselves find this to be a hindrance.
It then appears that you choose to reserve the majority of your 'rebuttal' to ad hominem, obviously the workings of a true debate artist ;)... Although I do understand your reason, everything else you have been saying just proves me right lol
Ensuring that the 4th amendment is maintained while conducting a search is a cop problem. Following the policies of Springfield PD is a Springfield Cop problem, not a general cop problem. Where I live, your stated position not a problem, nor for most places. Since cops don't do strip searches by the side of the road.
I didn't say you are wrong because you are retarded, I said you are wrong because there is no law to support your claim, and you are retarded. That's not ad hominem. You can't even get your fallacies right.
A - I never said there was a specific world wide law to support my claim,that's retarded, however there are policies and procedures police have to abide, by law....
B - Really? You're resorting to semantics about the use of the word 'cop' in regards to different jurisdictions and laws? Sigh...lol This is the worst debate tactic i have seen....
C - Not assuming gender may impede/impact on a police officer duties negatively and potentially dangerously....Fact.
Calling me a retard is cute when I can tell you are about as yuppie as they come talking about a subject like this lol get out more champ...
I never said there was a specific world wide law to support my claim
You said "A male officer must request a female officer". I said there is no law to this effect, and you disagreed. Not only is there no world wide law, there's not a federal law. There's not a state law. There's not a city law. And policies are not laws.
there are policies and procedures police have to abide, by law
This is factually incorrect.
You're resorting to semantics about the use of the word 'cop' in regards to different jurisdictions and laws?
No. I am using semantics with regards to which cops may care about gender as a matter of policy, not law.
Not assuming gender may impede/impact on a police officer duties negatively and potentially dangerously....Fact
That's not a fact, as I have shown.
Even if your scenario was factually accurate, which it is not, it would imply that a woman concealing a weapon during an arrest is not as dangerous as a man concealing a weapon during an arrest, since the danger is not in the woman's ability to conceal until a female officer arrives, but in the man's ability to conceal until the female officer arrives. Since weapons are often a force equalizer, your claim is false even if all the facts are true. Since the facts aren't even true, you fail twice.
If you are going to continue to rant about the different laws, jurisdictions, semantics through out the world as some sought of rebuttal then we are done.
You just look desperate...Pls have a re read and see if you catch up.
My post did not extend beyond US Federal law. Rather than ranting about different laws, I was reiterating that there is NO law on ANY books to fit your initial claim. We were done a long time ago, but you don't do well with losing.
Your initial point was made clear when you said I must now wait and get a female officer on scene to search this fully grown man.
I said that this wasn't true and that there is no law requiring it to which you key smashed "Yes there is!"
I provided a link that stated there is no law to this effect and that cops need to not let individual department policies interfere with their police work, regardless of gender.You've been claiming I proved your point ever since. Even though my source says directly "No court has said that a male officer can’t search a female subject in the case where there’s no female officer around. You simply have to do it correctly", you have taken that to be proof of your position.
We don't have to keep going back and forth. You simply need to prove your position (It will be hard since I've thoroughly disproven it), concede to my position, or walk away.
There are laws concerning corruption, such as those against accepting bribes. These laws are very different from department policies which is why I suggested you actually look up laws before you make asinine statements about them.
There are a lot of policies that are not laws. When a cop breaches those policies they may be fired or otherwise internally reprimanded, just like if someone broke policy at McDonalds. Laws are a different matter. In this case, an officer male officer may search a female officer for his own safety, be in breach of department policy, and have broken no law. He may only get a letter of warning in his file.
This is what I meant when I said you have a habit of not knowing you are confused.
I'm getting kind of bored with trying to educate someone who is willfully ignorant and too happy to remain that way. Try to prepare yourself with real information before proclaiming to know things. It will help with your woefully lacking debate style.
A search incident to arrest is what we are talking about. Not a strip search (those don't happen on the side of the road). Policy determines gender treatment in these situations and is not a legal issue. Policy also determines how often a cop has to clean his car. He isn't going to jail if he doesn't clean his car. He isn't going to jail if he searches a woman incident to arrest. His gender assumption is immaterial. You're Fucking stupid.
Yeah, you keep repeating this. And I have shown you in numerous ways how you are wrong. You don't understand law. You don't understand policy. You don't seem to know much of anything other than how to assert your incorrect opinion in the same terms over and over and over hoping you can wish your opinion into fact. It's pathetic.
I believe in FREEDOM.. That's FREEDOM to BE what you wanna BE... I don't hold people to ANYTHING except civil behavior.. It ain't up to me.. And, I don't care where people pee.
LOL, this ex con is the freedom loving Liberal that wants to force every public school to bow to his ideology, censor the nativity on public grounds, supports the party whose goal is to take our Gun freedoms, forces all Americans to pay to kill unborn babies, etc. etc.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, I CANT TAKE ANY MORE OF YOUR FREEDOM LOVING INTOLERANCE.
I want to be an octopus and get benefits that you pay for because I claim to be mentally handicapped as said "octopus". If you could give me your car and pay for my medical that'd be great too.
Quite a leap from having the civility to call someone what they want to be called and having to pay or their entire existence. Affirming the former doesn't mean backing the latter.
In the second case, no. Tolerance entails not actively obstructing someone else's beliefs for the mere sake of not liking that belief. It isn't intolerant to expect someone to realize their own beliefs, nor is it intolerant to let your own beliefs supersede over theirs if they're actually in conflict.
Okay. Can we obstruct a belief if it shows to have a direct corelation to endangering our people on a mass scale like say, can Israel in 1943 block Nazis from entering their country, even seemingly "good" Nazis, or must they tolerate them and let them in to not be Jewish bigots?
That does not follow from my argument. I clearly identified tolerance as avoiding obstruction of the beliefs of others due to mere disagreement with that belief, and explicitly observed that it is not intolerant to protect ones own interests if they are actually in direct conflict (which they would be in the case you present).
Even if it did follow from my position that this would be an act of intolerance, I never suggested that necessarily makes it problematic.
That does not follow from my argument. I clearly identified tolerance as avoiding obstruction of the beliefs of others due to mere disagreement with that belief
I'm intollerant of ISIS and Nazism. Does that make me intolerant or a decent human being?
Were Transgender's ever refused the right of any bathroom ? You don't care where people pee but your agenda should be pushed on all Americans ? When you Progressives have nothing left in the tank it's bathrooms , Russians or whatever other insane BS you can dream up !
No, you're not evil, as that may just be the way you grew up, however, if you deliberately refuse to refer someone as the pronoun that makes them feel the most comfortable solely to spite them, then yes that's quite messed up.
Sex is defined biologically. Notably, there are also more than two sexes; so even if gender essentialism were true your notion of gender would still be ill-informed.
Gender is a social concept that varies across cultures and times. It only ever exists as a matter of perspective, no matter what position you want to take on the validity of trans* identity.
No, this is an idea created by liberals to get trans. people to vote for them, and you can tell because they also support Muslims, who cannot go trans., and they also idolize them.
There is no such thing as evil, but even if there were I should hardly think either of these things would count for it. However, as it doesn't take much effort and doesn't hurt anyone to call someone by the name and pronouns they prefer... it probably does make you an asshole, but that's your prerogative.
Why would I do that? I don't have any qualms telling anyone evil does not exist, but I don't feel the need to fly halfway around the world to do so. Particularly when there's this novel invention called the internet.
Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "heals" the hearts of Muslims.
nope, that shouldn't be wrong, but it might offend the person.. and if you are willing to do that, or you don't care of offending the person, go for it.
I don't think it's wrong to "assume" someone's gender in most situations as transgender people make up around 0.6% of the population. I will normally refer to someone as what they look like unless they tell me otherwise.
I will however try not to assume someone's gender in specific contexts:
- If I'm doing something LGBT+ related, or if I think the person is likely to be LGBT+
- If the person concerned dresses and has their hair in a fashion that makes me think they may be transgender. I also have a couple of acquaintances who wear badges that let you know they are trans, in which case I'll respect it
- The above two points even more so if I am on a college campus
- Also, if I have an acquaintance on Facebook, I'll use whatever pronouns they go by on there
In those situations, I'll talk to them like any other person, but if I have to refer to them in the third person I'll use "they" or "them". That's their cue to let me know if they want to be referred to another way.
I do think it's unnecessarily antagonistic to continually refer to people as a gender they don't want to identify as. Calling them by their birth gender isn't going to make them change their minds, it's just going to make you look rude.
However, there are some trans people who need to chill a little on pronouns. Accusing people of assuming their gender, or insulting them for getting it wrong the first time, is just going to make people not want to talk to you.
I think a reasonable analogy to use for all this would be someone who feels American although they were actually born in another country. They feel strongly American and strongly patriotic towards America.
Telling them they're not American because they weren't born that way is just you being a jerk. You can think it, but you don't have to say it.