Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[60]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[46]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[60]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-04-13 00:05:09.810
	1	+2017-04-13 00:05:09.0

Caselist.CitesClass[46]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,11 @@
	1	+====The 1AC is gender binary per exelence, you gadamer evidence says him/her This exclusion is dangerous – if you don’t fit into neatly defined categories your experiences don’t count and you don’t matter.====
	2	+**Hope 12 ** (Hope  PR specialist and journalist "A Penis and a Dress: Why the Gender Binary Needs to Go Away" Huffington Post)
	3	+If your genitalia don't match the gender you most identify with, the American Psychiatric Association slaps you with the weighted label "gender identity disorder." There's current dialogue around changing the label to "gender incongruence," but it still boils down to the same ignorance: Society is placing judgment on you **because you don't play by the rules. **What kind of message are we continuing to send to pregnant people everywhere? We live in such a deeply gendered society that our kids have no fighting chance when it comes to freedom of gender expression. Mainstream voices continue to use the wrong dialogue to talk about those who transcend gender norms; the recent Washington Post piece "Transgender at five" is a perfect example. By using language like "gender identity problems" and "condition" to describe a child who doesn't want to dress, act, or play like a girl just because this child was born with a vagina, the piece reinforces the existing model rather than poking holes in it. Our tunnel-visioned, outmoded landscape needs a fresh, fundamental critique. We're looking at biological sex and gender in all the wrong ways. The solution? We need to raze the binary gender system entirely. A lofty, pie-in-the-sky goal, perhaps, but one that we're entirely capable of achieving. What purpose does aligning biological sex with societal ideas of gender norms serve, anyway? Why should someone with a penis be outfitted in blue and get toy trucks while someone with a vagina gets shuffled off to ballet class and squeezed into frilly dresses? Monitoring someone's psychosexual development might be important for health reasons, but policing their gender certainly is not. How do our constructs of "maleness" and "femaleness" contribute to a better world? They don't. Medical treatment, such as hormone therapy and surgery to more closely match bodies with an authentic sense of self, is currently the right decision for some people, but our existing, binary gender system makes it impossible to determine whether any of those people might feel more at home in the bodies in which they were born if only we backed away from trying to assign labels and behaviors to match our genitals. It's likely that some people would not want physical alterations if we taught everyone from birth that the body you were given doesn't dictate what childhood and adult expressions and activities you can engage in. In fact, not only would life get infinitely more accepting for transgender folks, but doing away with gender labels would solve millennia-old problems like misogyny, for one. Listen closely: Can you hear the glass ceiling shattering? Envision a society where less emphasis is placed on body parts to describe identity. Imagine a world where someone with a penis can wear dresses every day if this person desired. Gender-neutral bathrooms and department stores and professional sports become the rule rather than the exception to it. Children can choose to wear whatever they want, play with whatever toys they prefer, and "It's a baby!" replaces the gender-assigned announcement that proud parents send out. We let our children identify themselves, or not, as they grow, and do not impose gendered rules on their tiny, vulnerable, developing senses of self. After all, the biological spectrum is much more varied than just "man" or "woman"; when you factor in hormonal, chromosomal, and physical makeup, you get all sort of natural variations of sex that could, and probably would, translate into many different genders if only we allowed for it. If we shook the very foundations of our limiting, binary-gendered society, we're likely to see a very colorful array of confident, creative, beautiful people who span the range of internal and outward gender identity and expression. We're getting closer in Western thought to at least allowing our children to re-identify when the labels we've placed on them don't match their own self-identification, but we continue to fail at backing the conversation up to the point in time when we looked at our little embryo via ultrasound and decided whether we wanted to know the gender. Who cares what color we paint the nursery walls? We should reinvent our society so that our children can express themselves freely without the constraints of gender. Until we get rid of "male" and "female" as pillars of personhood, we will never see a solution to the discrimination waged against those who do not fit cleanly into the existing and limiting categories.
	4	+
	5	+====The alternative is to deconstruct gender and reject the male/female binary that perpetuates heteronormativity as the only "proper" form of existence. We have to recognize that gender is fluid and performed, not made to fall within a male/female binary.====
	6	+**Mirabelli 12** (Rebecca "My Anatomy, Your Sex: Deconstructing the sex/gender binary and heteronormativity through the isolation of gender from sexuality" http://youngchicagoauthors.org/girlspeak/blog/essays-articles/my-anatomy-your-sex-deconstructing-the-sexgender-binary-and-heteronormativity-through-the-isolation-of-gender-from-sexuality-by-rebecca-mirabelli)
	7	+In a patriarchal society that encourages heteronormative behaviours, we are persuaded to believe that human sexuality is trapped not only within the dichotomy of male and female genders, but within the subtext of heteronormality. The appropriation of conventional male or female behaviours, for the queer community, becomes essential in a society where a nuance of homophobia produces anxiety through being branded a dyke or fag. However, this appropriation occurs within the heterosexual community as well, in response to the fear of being exiled from the heterosexual in-crowd. For both these groups, the assumption is that one’s behaviour, and gender, is pre-determined by one’s genitals. In other words, one’s genitals determine the ways in which one performs sex. In other words, there is no gender outside of sex. In light of this, the deconstruction of the sex/gender binary is crucial. In this essay, I plan to dismantle the naturalization of heterosexuality (and ultimately the sex/gender binary) by creating three new sexual orientations that are variations of heterosexuality while focusing primarily on gender identities: the lesbian-heterosexual, the gay-heterosexual, and the bi-heterosexual. What happens to heterosexuality when we think outside of two genders? That’s a question I aim to investigate in this paper. In doing so; however, I do not intend to take any form of homosexuality out of queer; I am taking a constructively pro-gay stance to scrutinize the binaries surrounding sex and gender, but am also attempting to create more options around gender and sexuality for both womyn and men.In this paper, I use the didactic essays of Adrienne Rich and Judith Butler to assist my deconstruction of heterosexual hegemony and the sex/gender binary, and to also demonstrate the relevancy of my three new sexual orientations. In Rich’s article, Compulsory Heterosexuality and the Lesbian Existence, she focuses primarily on the lesbian response to heteronormativity. Her ideas; however, are applicable to the deconstruction of the sex/gender binary in regards to heteronormativity, seeing that she is "examining heterosexuality as a political institution which disempowers women although I argue men as well" (227). Rich argues against the obligation of heterosexuality stating that women do not need to depend on men as social and economic supports and further calls for a greater understanding of lesbian experiences. In her article, Rich identifies her concept of the lesbian continuum as a "range—through each woman’s life and throughout history—of woman-identified experience, not simply the fact that a woman has had or consciously desired genital sexual experience with another woman" (239). She also focuses on lesbian existence as a breaking down of taboos and "the rejection of a compulsory way of life" (ibid).Judith Butler’s article Imitation and Gender Insubordination focuses more broadly on gender—as opposed to Rich’s article which deals with lesbians exclusively—and the limitations one faces using "identity categories which tend to be instruments of regulatory regimes" (Butler 308). Butler uses the concept of drag to critique gender. She argues; however, that drag is not a "putting on of a gender that belongs properly to some other group….since there is no ‘proper’ gender" (312). What she means by there is no proper gender, is that gender is not a ‘being’ but a way of ‘doing’. In other words, gender is something one does rather than something one is. Butler argues that sexuality can never be fully expressed, meaning that it is never constant; it is constantly changing. Similarly, she claims that gender "is a performance that produces the illusion of an inner sex or essence or psychic gender core" (317) which demonstrates how difficult it is to separate sex and gender seeing that many people constitute gender as the result of sex and vice versa. Ultimately, Butler attempts to destabilize heterosexuality in a similar way that I aim to, and that is to "invert and displace" (318) the ways gender and sexuality are intertwined saying that we should work "sexuality against identity" (ibid). Compulsory heterosexuality, the lesbian continuum, and gender performativity are concepts from Rich’s and Butler’s articles that I plan to take up and explore in order to deconstruct and destabilize heteronormativity and the gender/sex binary.The influence of the sex/gender dichotomy on sexuality can be depleted through the isolation of gender as an independent factor unrelated to sex. By "working sexuality against identity" (Butler 318) gender becomes its own construct and not the result of sex. By saying that gender can be isolated from sex, I am really saying that we are separating the anatomical aspect of sexuality from gender identity. This suggests that heterosexuality describes the anatomical way, and not the gendered way, one performs sex. In relation to Butler’s argument, heterosexuality, in this case, becomes something ones does and not how one is or identifies. In the naturalization of heterosexuality, to identify as a heterosexual means to appropriate the norms and expected behaviours associated with being ‘straight’. In a deconstructionist view, when isolating gender from sex, one can still identify as a heterosexual (penis-vagina copulation; anatomy), but one’s behavioural identity or gender is unrelated to the way one prefers to perform sex. By doing so, we are making room for an infinite amount of genders seeing that we are breaking down the binary and creating opportunities for multiplicity. Ultimately, the existence of more than two primary genders, as compared to the two primary sexes considered normative, becomes established. When trying to deconstruct the sex/gender binary, with new combinations being created, such as lesbian-, gay-, and bi-heterosexuality, there becomes the possibility of six genders. By promoting plurality we are further destabilizing the sex/gender binary created from heteronormativity. Since "heterosexuality naturalizes itself through setting up certain illusions of continuity between sex and gender" (Butler 317), by depleting this continuity we are making room for variation and creating space for fluidity.In order to deconstruct the normalcy of heterosexuality as the primary sexuality, I introduce three new sexual orientations—lesbian-heterosexuality, gay-heterosexuality, and bi-heterosexuality—which denote the separation between gender identity and sexual performance. Rich’s concept of the lesbian continuum influenced the construction of these new identities. Borrowing the idea of a range or spectrum of woman-identified experience (Rich 239), I decided to focus mainly on the scale of gendered-experience and the variance between gender at one end of the spectrum (extreme performance of masculinity) and at the other (extreme performance of femininity). Through this, gender becomes a fluctuation as it loses all sense of rigidity seeing that masculinity and femininity can become transfixed within each other. The isolation of gender from sex, evident in these three sexual orientations, deconstructs heteronormative sexuality by illustrating that one’s sexual orientation is not determinative of gender; they are separate.
	8	+
	9	+====Discourse comes first and that is specifically true in debate—the rhetoric we use reflects the real world====
	10	+**Vincent 13** (Christopher Debate Coach, former college NDT debater "Re-Conceptualizing Our Performances: Accountability In Lincoln Douglas Debate"http://victorybriefs.com/vbd/2013/10/re-conceptualizing-our-performances-accountability-in-lincoln-douglas-debate)
	11	+Charles Mills argues that "the moral concerns of African Americans have centered on the assertion of their personhood, a personhood that could generally be taken for granted by whites, so that blacks have had to see these theories from a location outside their purview." For example, I witnessed a round at a tournament this season where a debater ran a utilitarianism disadvantage. His opponent argued that this discourse was racist because it ignores the way in which a utilitarian calculus has distorted communities of color by ignoring the wars and violence already occurring in those communities.  In the next speech, the debater stood up, conceded it was racist, and argued that it was the reason he was not going for it and moved on, and still won the debate.  This is problematic because it demonstrates exactly what Mill’s argument is. For the black debater this argument is a question of his or her personhood within the debate space and the white debater was not held accountable for the words that are said.  Again for debaters of color, their performance is always attached to their body which is why it is important that the performance be viewed in relation to the speech act. Whites ~~Some~~ are allowed to take for granted the impact their words have on the bodies in the space. They take for granted this notion of personhood and ignore the concerns of those who do not matter divorced from the flow. It is never a question of "should we make arguments divorced from our ideologies," it is a question of is it even possible. It is my argument that our performances, regardless of what justification we provide, are always a reflection of the ideologies we hold. Why should a black debater have to use a utilitarian calculus just to win a round, when that same discourse justifies violence in the community they go back home to? Our performances and our decisions in the round, reflect the beliefs that we hold when we go back to our communities.  As a community we must re-conceptualize this distinction the performance by the body and of the body by re-evaluating the role of the speech and the speech act. It is no longer enough for judges to vote off of the flow anymore. Students of color are being held to a higher threshold to better articulate why racism is bad, which is the problem in a space that we deem to be educational. It is here where I shift my focus to a solution.  Debaters must be held accountable for the words they say in the round. We should no longer evaluate the speech. Instead we must begin to evaluate the speech act itself. Debaters must be held accountable for more than winning the debate. They must be held accountable for the implications of that speech. As educators and adjudicators in the debate space we also have an ethical obligation to foster an atmosphere of education. It is not enough for judges to offer predispositions suggesting that they do not endorse racist, sexist, homophobic discourse, or justify why they do not hold that belief, and still offer a rational reason why they voted for it.  Judges have become complacent in voting on the discourse, if the other debater does not provide a clear enough role of the ballot framing, or does not articulate well enough why the racist discourse should be rejected. Judges must be willing to foster a learning atmosphere by holding debaters accountable for what they say in the round. They must be willing to vote against a debater if they endorse racist discourse. They must be willing to disrupt the process of the flow for the purpose of embracing that teachable moment. The speech must be connected to the speech act. We must view the entire debate as a performance of the body, instead of the argument solely on the flow. Likewise, judges must be held accountable for what they vote for in the debate space. If a judge is comfortable enough to vote for discourse that is racist, sexist, or homophobic, they must also be prepared to defend their actions. We as a community do not live in a vacuum and do not live isolated from the larger society. That means that judges must defend their actions to the debaters, their coaches, and to the other judges in the room if it is a panel. Students of color should not have the burden of articulating why racist discourse must be rejected, but should have the assurance that the educator with the ballot will protect them in those moments. Until we re-conceptualize the speech and the speech act, and until judges are comfortable enough to vote down debaters for a performance that perpetuates violence in the debate space, debaters and coaches alike will remain complacent in their privilege. As educators we must begin to shift the paradigm and be comfortable doing this. As a community we should stop looking at ourselves as isolated in a vacuum and recognize that the discourse and knowledge we produce in debate has real implications for how we think when we leave this space. Our performances must be viewed as of the body instead of just by it. As long as we continue to operate in a world where our performances are merely by bodies, we will continue to foster a climate of hostility and violence towards students of color, and in turn destroy the transformative potential this community could have.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-04-13 00:05:11.895

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Kyle Fennessy

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Woodlands DY

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+60

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Warren Okunlola Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5 - K - Gender Binary - 1NC - University of Houston Round 5

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+University of Houston