One of the favorite “gotchas” of pseudo-debaters/culture-war gnats (they’re not warriors, and are mostly annoying) is to demand the definition of a woman (this happens more often if the “debaters” are male; it’s amazing how many think they are the arbiter of what a woman is 🙄).

I’m sure their definition is a strict binary: XX chromosomes, a uterus, etc. But what about those like 2022 Mrs. America and 2026 International United Miss Jackie Green, who is intersex and was born with female external genitalia, internal testes, no uterus, XY chromosomes and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, meaning that her body could not recognize testosterone so she developed as the genetic default, female (yes, the default is female)? A natural genetic variation produced a woman with XY chromosomes, and she’s far from the only one (heck, there are multiple women in her family with CAIS); there are, in fact, multiple genetic variations that challenge the idea that only someone with XX chromosomes can be a woman. There’s even a genetic variation wherein someone with XX chromosomes is actually male (46,XX testicular difference of sex development or XX male syndrome).

And speaking of uteruses, what about those of us who had hysterectomies? My sister-in-law had a hysterectomy after giving birth to my niece, having been advised that another pregnancy would likely kill her. I had one after suffering from large fibroids (I named mine Damian; seemed appropriate), and so have many other women.

But here’s the thing about the sort of people who bring up questions like this: Besides being afraid of feminism because it advocates equal rights for all, they’re not really interested in an answer that’s not black-and-white … and wrong on so many levels. All they’re interested in is a fight.

That’s one reason I can’t stand debates, especially as practiced today (that 2016 one between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, with Trump stomping menacingly behind Hillary on stage was especially egregious). Sure, there are occasionally those that produce actual debate and thoughtful questions and answers (the Chris Jones-French Hill debate comes to mind, though Hill used a few whoppers; see John Brummett’s online column today for more details on that), but the political debates of today are a far cry from the Lincoln-Douglas debates of the 19th century.

I hated debate in high school, primarily because I’m not good at speaking extemporaneously (it’s gotten worse since my stroke in 2015 and then the pandemic), which is one reason I rarely accept invitations to speak. My mouth has always run faster than my brain, which is at any given moment mulling 150 different scenarios and 525,600 facts and Broadway songs and trying to remember if I turned off the bedroom light. And doing weather on our campus TV station in college? Ha! I can do improv acting with little problem because I’m embodying a role, but improvisation as me doesn’t work.

But here’s the thing about classic formal debate. It has rules. You know where you are with it at every juncture because it always proceeds the same way, with so much time given to each team to present their arguments and rebuttals. Beforehand, you learn everything you can about a given topic, both sides of an argument because you don’t know if you’ll be pro or con, and make copious notes so that you can quickly pull out the correct reference to prove your point on whatever side your team happens to draw.

What passes for political debate now isn’t really. It’s yelling. It’s lying. It’s peacocking. It’s pretending for however long the debate lasts that you care about the rules (for the debate or life in general). What we see in so many “debates” now, especially those that are online, is the stamp of Jerry Springer and Maury Povich and right-wing provocateurs like Charlie Kirk (what he did can’t really be called debate; it was more entrapment for clicks). There is little to no concern for facts, just the “gotcha,” no matter how tenuous it is, because as long as you’re able to “own” the other side according to your fellow like-minded believers, you’ve won. If you can accuse the other side of some dastardly deed (no evidence needed) and make them spend their time rebutting the accusation instead of going after the lack of substance in your argument, you’ve won. If you’re a jerk, you’ve won.

I get it. Rules can be a pain in the butt sometimes, especially if you’re accustomed to getting your way because no one ever told you no and your bullying behavior has just been accepted because it’s easier than dealing with your complaints. But we have rules to ensure fairness. When we throw out the rules for debate, for government service, for Internet forums, for who gets that library book next, we end up with a free-for-all that serves no one except those who thrive on and profit from chaos.

I would endure a million formal debates on farm policy and ethanol subsidies (😴😴😴) if we could just go back to politics with purpose, manners and honor. Will that happen? Nah, for many reasons, political expediency being one. It’s so much easier to paint all opponents with the same brush, regardless of whether facts belie the campaign line. That of course carries over to online “debate,” because why think for yourself when campaigns have done the thinking for you with ready-made talking points and ad hominem attacks? Thinking’s for sissies! Besides, all that science stuff about the gender spectrum (because it is a spectrum) is liberal nonsense designed to make our children woke!

Riiiiight. Reality and science are evil. Facts are the devil’s work. Got it.

Dishonest tactics like posing questions that were already answered while claiming they weren’t, removing context or just pretending it doesn’t matter, creating straw men, and overloading people with “facts” that have little to do, if anything, with the subject at hand are a big part of the reason a lot of people don’t like hanging around on unmoderated forums, and that’s even before we get to the insults and the accusations of sloppy journalism by people who have no idea what journalism entails. If rules aren’t enforced and there are no consequences for bad behavior, those who play by the rules don’t find it worth their while.

What will they do when they’re only performing for themselves because they’ve made the forum too much of a cesspool for normal people to want to spend time there?

Perhaps at some point we’ll see that ceding our spaces, online and offline, to people who have no interest in civil discussion was a mistake. I have to hope, but admit that that hope dims each time I open a harassing message or (gasp) read the comments online.

We can do oh so much better.