Gender Essentialism

[Immanuel Can]

I'd be a pissed off, mutilated man, and there'd be hell to pay.

Tom Selleck in a dress...does anybody think that would be a woman?

[Dachshund]

I'd be a pissed off, mutilated man, and there'd be hell to pay.

Tom Selleck in a dress...does anybody think that would be a woman?

I think you underestimate Henry's potential, IC. I'm sure that if he put on a bit of lipstick and mascara and wriggled into one of his wife's floral print dresses Henry would be just as "cute as a bug's ear ! " (All the boys in Lousanna would want a slice of "Henrietta pie").

And what about you, IC ?! Don't tell me you haven't been tempted to "frock up" and take a "walk on the wild side" now and then. Deny it if you will, but I know the truth !


Dachshund

[henry quirk]

(All the boys in Lousanna would want a slice of "Henrietta pie").

[Immanuel Can]

And what about you, IC ?! Don't tell me you haven't been tempted to "frock up" and take a "walk on the wild side" now and then. Deny it if you will, but I know the truth !

I'm going to quote a line from the show "Everybody Loves Raymond," said by Robert, when his mother asks if he'd like her to tell him the facts of life.

He says, "Well, I would: but I wouldn't know what to do with all the vomit."

[Dachshund]

EXACTLY !

Dachshund

[Immanuel Can]

EXACTLY !
Dachshund

Well, some people might be able to pass themselves off that way, but I'm not at all optimistic about myself. There aren't many women who have my height or and none with my shoulders...and not many with size 13 (US male) feet, so getting high heels could be a real problem.

[Dachshund]

I'm going to quote a line from the show "Everybody Loves Raymond," said by Robert, when his mother asks if he'd like her to tell him the facts of life.

He says, "Well, I would: but I wouldn't know what to do with all the vomit."

Dear IC,


On a more serious note, this brings to mind a reflection that was written by the Catholic novelist, Graham Greene, in a brief passage from his great masterpiece, "The Power and the Glory." As you are a theist, - a Christian -, I believe, perhaps you have already read it? This little novel has an interesting history. Not long after it was published in 1939 it became a huge international bestseller. Because the hero of the story was a downtrodden, despondent Roman Catholic priest who had broken his vows and become mired in sin and guilt, the book shook the Vatican of the time to its very foundations. The magisterium of the Roman Church was shocked by Greene tale of a Catholic priest who is a tortured drunkard and fornicator, ultimately becoming a champion of the faith. Given this, when "The Power and the Glory" was tipped as a hot favourite to take the Nobel Prize for literature in the 1940s, Pope Pius XII intervened personally, contacting the Nobel Prize Committee to veto any decision to award Graham Greene the Nobel Prize. It's funny how the magisterium of the RC Church has changed its views (sometimes quite dramatically) over the years. Today, for instance, I am sure that Pope Francis would unreservedly affirm "The Power and the Glory" as a profound and inspirational work of faith.


Anyway, to continue. There is a scene in the novel where the hero, a fallen (alcoholic) Catholic Priest is thrown into a filthy, prison cell in Mexico. The cell is over-crowded with the lowest specimens of humanity: cut-throats, thieves, the brutish poor...every kind of disreputable and antisocial character imaginable.


As he slowly looks around, observing his fellow inmates, the Priest comes to realize that...


" When you visualized a man or a woman carefully, you could always begin to feel pity...that was a quality God's image carried with it... when you saw the lines at the corners of the eyes, the shape of the mouth, how the hair grew, it was impossible to hate."



That passage speaks a truth that has haunted me for over 25 years. ( At least, I think it speaks a truth)



What do you think, IC ?



Kindest Regards


Dachshund

[Nick_A]

Henry

I don't favor persecution of the insane, the confused, or the out n out wrong. But, as I say, I don't favor goin' along to get along either. As I say: Joe wants to live as a woman, actually believe he is a woman, that's no skin offa my nose. Expectin' me to treat him as a woman (to participate in his delusion or error), yeah, that's not happenin'.

But can man, woman, or a trans be treated as a human being? We don't know since we don't know what a human being is. We define a human being by physical and societal qualities which have often little to do with what it means to be a human being.

I'm chess player and find it amazing how many apparently complicated ethical questions can be made clear over the board.

for example if a person is grandmaster does it matter if they are a trans? No because the important thing is the competition of the game which bonds serious players. You may curse the trans out and say to yourself how can I lose to this @#$% but the point is that the game bonds them.

The bonding element for Mankind would be its collective relationship to higher consciousness. We lack the quality of consciousness to make it possible so invent all sorts of nonsense to compensate for the loss and the worst IMO is the glorification of the Great Beast or society itself as God.

I've come to accept the reality of fallen Man so I can honestly ask myself what good is one idiot calling another idiot an idiot? Isn't it better to try to appreciate what a human being is in relation to the evolutionary potential for Man in relation to universal principles? I know how much and why this idea must be hated but is it possible for you to accept reactions towards a trans as another example of the fallen human condition?

[Immanuel Can]

" When you visualized a man or a woman carefully, you could always begin to feel pity...that was a quality God's image carried with it... when you saw the lines at the corners of the eyes, the shape of the mouth, how the hair grew, it was impossible to hate."

That passage speaks a truth that has haunted me for over 25 years. ( At least, I think it speaks a truth)

What do you think, IC ?

That's a good quotation.

I know of the book, and once started to read it...but for reasons I can't remember, never got more than a couple of chapters into it. I couldn't tell you why I never finished it...for me, that's unusual.

It's often hard to see beyond the present condition of a particular person. But we should. So that's a salutary reminder.

[FlashDangerpants]

We're past talking about "chairs," and way past talking about Essentialism, because we've already 100% agreed about what the implications of Essentialism would be, IF it were true.

No we aren't,

Oh? So you don't think Gender Essentialism would be a problem for transgenderism?

You'll need to explain why.

Because my position is clearly that a thing or person can belong to some cateegory of object and then change to some other category. And your claim is that either all objects are stuck in some original category, or else there are no categories and all our language of having objects belong to types is meaningless.

So we are not past talking about that. And we aren't agreed on the other thing either. Actual gender essentialists appear think gender is a special category with a essence, I very much doubt that they think all categories depend on essence for their meaning, for that bullshit you have to dig up Aristotle.

[Nick_A]

When a caterpillar becomes a moth, has its essence changed?

[Immanuel Can]

Because my position is clearly that a thing or person can belong to some cateegory of object and then change to some other category.

That can only happen on condition that "category" doesn't mean anything stable. If it does, then what you say is simply not true, by definition.

You might argue that a small human can become a big human, but you couldn't argue that a human could become a cat, a tree or a rock. Now, the question here is whether gender is two stable categories, or merely two superficial overlays on the deep fact of sameness. And you keep vacillating on that question. You want to say BOTH that categories can tell us something objectively true, AND that they cannot.

You want to say "man" is a thing a transsexual can be, in the first place, and also something he can want to leave, in the second, and that "woman" also is a stable category that he can seek out and desire genuinely to be, but also that since gender is transient and negotiable, these same categories refer to nothing.

But quite obviously, you can't have it both ways. You need to pick a horse and ride it...and hope that it doesn't suddenly turn into a cabbage.

[FlashDangerpants]

Because my position is clearly that a thing or person can belong to some cateegory of object and then change to some other category.

That can only happen on condition that "category" doesn't mean anything stable. If it does, then what you say is simply not true, by definition.

No it doesn't. This is a piece of jewellery made by reshaping a fork.

As you can see, it no longer really belongs to the fork category, it is not a functional implement for eating food.
It wasn't destroyed though, it wasn't melted or eavporated into the new form, it was merely twisted a little an polished.
Now that former fork has a new role in the world, one reserved for adornments and withheld from mere implements.

The categories of jewellery and cutlery are untroubled by this alteration, they continue to describe the objects that fit within their respective scopes, and one individual object happens to have transferred from one scope to the other.

You might argue that a small human can become a big human, but you couldn't argue that a human could become a cat, a tree or a rock. Now, the question here is whether gender is two stable categories, or merely two superficial overlays on the deep fact of sameness. And you keep vacillating on that question. You want to say BOTH that categories can tell us something objectively true, AND that they cannot.

If I have described categorisation as refencing anything objectively true, that would be a very careless use of the concept of objectivity on my part. I would normally restrict myself to saying that we use categorisation because it is useful to us, and any specific category that continues to be useful can be used without contradiction.

You want to say "man" is a thing a transsexual can be, in the first place, and also something he can want to leave, in the second, and that "woman" also is a stable category that he can seek out and desire genuinely to be, but also that since gender is transient and negotiable, these same categories refer to nothing.

I absolutely haven't said that these categories refer to nothing, from the first statement I made on that topic through till now I have clearly recognised that they refer to what I described as " a mix of biological and social differences", none of which, individually or in specific combination qualifies as an "essence", even if we use a more modern vernacular meaning of that term rather than the strict antiquated Arsitotelian version you opted for.

But quite obviously, you can't have it both ways. You need to pick a horse and ride it...and hope that it doesn't suddenly turn into a cabbage.

I don't have to pick either of the two horses you are offering me though, they are mere donkeys of misdirection.

[Immanuel Can]

As you can see, it no longer really belongs to the fork category, it is not a functional implement for eating food.

Functionalist definition. It's still essentially the original fork. Now it's a mangled one, that is being used as a piece of jewelry. But its essential composition is unchanged.

You never answered my question, "What is the Functionalist definition of a 'woman'?" If Functionalism was enough, then you should be able to.

You might argue that a small human can become a big human, but you couldn't argue that a human could become a cat, a tree or a rock. Now, the question here is whether gender is two stable categories, or merely two superficial overlays on the deep fact of sameness. And you keep vacillating on that question. You want to say BOTH that categories can tell us something objectively true, AND that they cannot.

If I have described categorisation as refencing anything objectively true,

That's a stable definition of "category." That means that a man cannot actually become a woman, if true.

I would normally restrict myself to saying that we use categorisation because it is useful to us,

What makes a category "useful," though? You've said, above: it's that it refers to "objective truth." If it does not, then it is no longer "useful," because it fails to represent adequately the real way things are in the world.

You want to say "man" is a thing a transsexual can be, in the first place, and also something he can want to leave, in the second, and that "woman" also is a stable category that he can seek out and desire genuinely to be, but also that since gender is transient and negotiable, these same categories refer to nothing.

I absolutely haven't said that these categories refer to nothing, from the first statement I made on that topic through till now I have clearly recognised that they refer to what I described as " a mix of biological and social differences",

"Differences"? According to you, are these "differences" that matter and are real, or merely "differences" of appearance? Because whichever you say, transgenderism's goose is logically cooked. You won't be able to render it coherent on either assumption.

So pick one.

[Dachshund]

When a caterpillar becomes a moth, has its essence changed?

Nick,

(NB: Before I start...IC uses the term "ESSENCE", I prefer to use the ontological synonym "SUBSTANCE")

OK...Suppose when your mother was pregnant with you, she had her obstetrician produce an image of you in the womb as a 4 week -old- embryo. Your mum is fascinated with this image from the MRI machine and has it converted to a nice photograph of little "embryonic Nick". Then she framed it and hung it in the living room of your home. Three months later she did the same thing and had a high-tech MRI image of you as a 4-month-old foetus produced - turned it into a framed photograph and hung it up on the wall next to the first photo of you as an embryo.

Then when you are a 3- year- old toddler, she has an nice portrait photo of you taken and hangs it up on the wall at home. Same again when you are a ten-year old boy, then a 17 year old teenager, then a young man of 28 at Church on your wedding day (with your new French bride, the beautiful Simone Weil - Ooh La La !! )- and another when you are 37-years - old and so on.

Your mum has hung all of these framed photographs side - by - side in chronological order.

When you are looking at these photographs one day in your parent's house, it suddenly dawns on you that are looking at the same "thing", i.e; YOU, the human being, a SUBSTANCE who is called Nick and can only ever be Nick.

Do you geddit ? Each photograph is a photo of a SUBSTANCE (or ESSENCE) that is the individual "thing" that is YOU. Each photo is a photograph of NICK.

Regards


Dachshund..................................(Beware the dog)