Gender Essentialism

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: it bears repeating...

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:31 pm Joe can pretend to be a woman, may actually believe he's a woman, but Joe is a man.

Betty can pretend to be a man, may actually believe she's a man, but Betty is a woman.

No amount of surgery or hormone therapy can change a man into a woman, or a woman into man.

No consensus will change a man into a woman, or a woman into man.
So, what is it exactly that makes the difference between 'men' and 'women'?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: it bears repeating...

Post by henry quirk »

Age wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:24 am
henry quirk wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:31 pm Joe can pretend to be a woman, may actually believe he's a woman, but Joe is a man.

Betty can pretend to be a man, may actually believe she's a man, but Betty is a woman.

No amount of surgery or hormone therapy can change a man into a woman, or a woman into man.

No consensus will change a man into a woman, or a woman into man.
So, what is it exactly that makes the difference between 'men' and 'women'?
Materially: XX & XY. As the biological keystone, either chromosome pair fixes gender/sex (encompassing all manner of gross and subtle difference).

*Immaterially: the spirit, as it's inextricably fixed to flesh.









*this explanation is a function of my deism...if spooky supranatural shenanigans ain't your cuppa, ignore the immaterial and stick with the old, boring material
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: it bears repeating...

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:47 am
Age wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:24 am
henry quirk wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:31 pm Joe can pretend to be a woman, may actually believe he's a woman, but Joe is a man.

Betty can pretend to be a man, may actually believe she's a man, but Betty is a woman.

No amount of surgery or hormone therapy can change a man into a woman, or a woman into man.

No consensus will change a man into a woman, or a woman into man.
So, what is it exactly that makes the difference between 'men' and 'women'?
Materially: XX & XY. As the biological keystone, either chromosome pair fixes gender/sex (encompassing all manner of gross and subtle difference).
Thank you. This is the first time I have seen something else, which was what I have been looking for.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:47 am *Immaterially: the spirit, as it's inextricably fixed to flesh.

*this explanation is a function of my deism...if spooky supranatural shenanigans ain't your cuppa, ignore the immaterial and stick with the old, boring material
I am not sure how the "spirit" is inextricably fixed to flesh, especially when there are so many that call themselves a "she", for example, but the chromosomes have apparently created a "he" body.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by henry quirk »

Thank you. This is the first time I have seen something else, which was what I have been looking for.

:thumbsup:


I am not sure how the "spirit" is inextricably fixed to flesh, especially when there are so many that call themselves a "she", for example, but the chromosomes have apparently created a "he" body.

Being, in part, spirit doesn't preclude the possibility of mental illness (which is what all this transgender nonsense is rooted in).

As for how many folks self-identify as transgender, the data is sketchy. One study from 2014 sez Approximately 0.6% of adults in the United States, or 1.4 million individuals, identify as transgender. Compare this to the 46.6 million folks in the U.S. diagnosed with some kind of mental or psychological disorder, and consider that a significant number of folks who self-identify as transgender are also diagnosed with a concurrent mental or psychological disorder.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:11 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 5:31 pm The question you posed was which version of feminism was most genuine.
It isn't. What I posed to you was this:
I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".



You are turning into TRUMP.
LOL
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:54 pm I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".
Oh, I see.

You were reverting to a much earlier question you had avoided, in order to avoid the inescapable present dilemma I'd put to you, with which you could not deal at all.

Bravo.

Now show that there's a middle position between "exist" and "not exist."
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:00 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:54 pm I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".
Oh, I see.

You were reverting to a much earlier question you had avoided, in order to avoid the inescapable present dilemma I'd put to you, with which you could not deal at all.

Bravo.

Now show that there's a middle position between "exist" and "not exist."
It was the OP you moron; the post I was originally responding to.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:18 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:00 pm Now show that there's a middle position between "exist" and "not exist."
It was the OP you moron; the post I was originally responding to.
Bravo.

Now answer the question above...if you can.
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: it bears repeating...

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Age wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:24 am
henry quirk wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:31 pm Joe can pretend to be a woman, may actually believe he's a woman, but Joe is a man.

Betty can pretend to be a man, may actually believe she's a man, but Betty is a woman.

No amount of surgery or hormone therapy can change a man into a woman, or a woman into man.

No consensus will change a man into a woman, or a woman into man.
So, what is it exactly that makes the difference between 'men' and 'women'?
Genetics are the defining factor.

As far as how, in practice it's defined within the context of the law; I'm not an expert, either way that question could be postulated about anything, and easily degenerate into absurdism.

(e.x. What exactly is it that makes the difference between a turkey and a battleship? Both are made of atoms and molecules)?

(e.x. What exactly is it that makes the difference between Donald Trump and a blimp? Both are full of hot air.)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:18 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:00 pm Now show that there's a middle position between "exist" and "not exist."
It was the OP you moron; the post I was originally responding to.
Bravo.

Now answer the question above...if you can.
Aaaaaaand....

It's gone quiet. :D

No wonder. It cannot be done. There is no such middle position. Either a difference exists, or no difference exists.

Either the Egalitarian Feminists are right, or the Difference Feminists are right. But not both. It's not even possible.
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:27 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:18 pm

It was the OP you moron; the post I was originally responding to.
Bravo.

Now answer the question above...if you can.
Aaaaaaand....

It's gone quiet. :D

No wonder. It cannot be done. There is no such middle position. Either a difference exists, or no difference exists.

Either the Egalitarian Feminists are right, or the Difference Feminists are right. But not both. It's not even possible.
I find that dichomtic; the differences "may exist" but without contextualization to determine when, where, and to whom they are relevant, it ends up just being a source of "argument".

As far as meritocracy goes, for example, obviously individual women who are capable of being mathematicians, or men capable of being a master chef, so I don't see why the mere existence of "differences" should interfere with human potential in individualized cases or scenarios.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:01 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:27 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:18 pm Bravo.

Now answer the question above...if you can.
Aaaaaaand....

It's gone quiet. :D

No wonder. It cannot be done. There is no such middle position. Either a difference exists, or no difference exists.

Either the Egalitarian Feminists are right, or the Difference Feminists are right. But not both. It's not even possible.
I find that dichomtic; the differences "may exist" but without contextualization to determine when, where, and to whom they are relevant, it ends up just being a source of "argument".
The problem is not "dichomtic" to use your word; it's not that it's either one or the other. That's no problem. The problem is what to make of the fact that it's one or the other.

One of the silly prejudices of our society is to think that any realization that compels a choice must, automatically, be "oversimplified," or "too narrow," or something like that. But there are choices where there is no other choice; and in such cases, waiting for a third option is just irrational.

For example: This thing's alive; this thing is non-living. The light switch is on; the light switch is off. A difference exists; a difference does not exist. These are examples of dichotomies that are real. And all one can do is accept there are only those two options, and deal. To deny them, in the name of being "moderate" is simply irrational and silly. But that's what our society prefers us to do.
I don't see why the mere existence of "differences" should interfere with human potential in individualized cases or scenarios.
Well, with things like the examples you list (mere careers) it may not...or not much. But that's a later matter. The present matter is to decide if there are any essential differences at all -- whether it's even worth recognizing that there are such things as men and women, or we should just get over it and call everybody "person."

Here's the problem in Feminism:

If you are a man, there is no way you're ever going to 'get' everything that a woman brings to the equation. Something essential, precious and unique dwells in being female. (Diversity Feminism).

or

A woman is nothing in essence, and a man is nothing in essence. They're essentially the same. All distinctions are arbitrary. (Egalitarian Feminism)

But Egalitarian Feminism has a further irrationality inherent to it. Because if Egalitarian Feminism is true, then you can't essentially BE either one. :shock: There's nothing to "be." Rather, "man" and "woman" are just things you call yourself, but which have no essential referent in reality. :shock:

So if anybody's got any kind of rational case, it's the Diversity Feminists. But there are still some problems with that case, and they involve the question of WHAT feature makes the essence of femaleness. Diversity Feminists themselves don't agree on that.

And it might well have implications for later concerns, and even on the much later concern you mention, of what careers fit the essence. But that's waaaay down the line. At the moment, all we're trying to figure out is which way people want to side.
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:25 pm
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:01 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:27 pm

Aaaaaaand....

It's gone quiet. :D

No wonder. It cannot be done. There is no such middle position. Either a difference exists, or no difference exists.

Either the Egalitarian Feminists are right, or the Difference Feminists are right. But not both. It's not even possible.
I find that dichomtic; the differences "may exist" but without contextualization to determine when, where, and to whom they are relevant, it ends up just being a source of "argument".
The problem is not "dichomtic" to use your word; it's not that it's either one or the other. That's no problem. The problem is what to make of the fact that it's one or the other.

One of the silly prejudices of our society is to think that any realization that compels a choice must, automatically, be "oversimplified," or "too narrow," or something like that. But there are choices where there is no other choice; and in such cases, waiting for a third option is just irrational.

For example: This thing's alive; this thing is non-living. The light switch is on; the light switch is off. A difference exists; a difference does not exist. These are examples of dichotomies that are real. And all one can do is accept there are only those two options, and deal. To deny them, in the name of being "moderate" is simply irrational and silly. But that's what our society prefers us to do.
I don't see why the mere existence of "differences" should interfere with human potential in individualized cases or scenarios.
Well, with things like the examples you list (mere careers) it may not...or not much. But that's a later matter. The present matter is to decide if there are any essential differences at all -- whether it's even worth recognizing that there are such things as men and women, or we should just get over it and call everybody "person."

Here's the problem in Feminism:

If you are a man, there is no way you're ever going to 'get' everything that a woman brings to the equation. Something essential, precious and unique dwells in being female. (Diversity Feminism).

or

A woman is nothing in essence, and a man is nothing in essence. They're essentially the same. All distinctions are arbitrary. (Egalitarian Feminism)

But Egalitarian Feminism has a further irrationality inherent to it. Because if Egalitarian Feminism is true, then you can't essentially BE either one. :shock: There's nothing to "be." Rather, "man" and "woman" are just things you call yourself, but which have no essential referent in reality. :shock:

So if anybody's got any kind of rational case, it's the Diversity Feminists. But there are still some problems with that case, and they involve the question of WHAT feature makes the essence of femaleness. Diversity Feminists themselves don't agree on that.

And it might well have implications for later concerns, and even on the much later concern you mention, of what careers fit the essence. But that's waaaay down the line. At the moment, all we're trying to figure out is which way people want to side.
Similarities and difference exist in both men and women, that's fairly obvious. Both of those "statements" are just simplistic logical fallacies and nothing else and have no relevance in my world at all.

As far as your strawman quotes go, I'm not interested in addressing them, thankfully they have no relevance in serious detentions of the world, such as legal philosophy, so I don't care to give attention to silly notions of that nature to begin with; people, especially social media can "say" anything the want, and if what they "say" isn't relevant or worth a serious man or woman's time to address to begin with, I'm not inclined to care, but rather filter it out as just noise and mindless chatter.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:40 pm Similarities and difference exist in both men and women, that's fairly obvious.
But trivial. "Differences exist" between all objects in the universe.

More importantly, do differences exist between every man and every woman?
Both of those "statements" are just simplistic logical fallacies and nothing else and have no relevance in my world at all.
You mean Diversity Feminism and Egalitarian Feminism? Yes, the "Feminist" part could be gratuitous, it's true.

However, unfortunately for "your world" there IS a difference, and there IS NOT a difference are the only possible answers to the question. There is no third alternative. So in any world at all, you're going to have to pick one and go with it; or else have to accept the certainty that whatever imaginary answer you're believing is quite simply impossible.

For the only impossible answer is that neither of these answers is true.
uwot
Posts: 5044
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by uwot »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:30 pm...do differences exist between every man and every woman?
Here's a reminder of the sort of differences Mr Can is referring to:
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:01 pm I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".

1. There is something unique and special to being female, something that cannot be generated by males...(What would it be? A kind of cognition? A kind of perception? A kind of intuition? A natural propensity? A domestic possibility? A set of values? A perspective?...etc. It varies among Feminist writers) -- this is a kind of 3rd Wave claim.
I think anyone who has met more than a handful of people would be very hard pushed to think of any one of those 'somethings' that is "unique and special to being female". Which Feminist writer has made the case for "A domestic possibility" for example?
Of the somethings you list, it is demonstrably not so that any of them is unique to females, so unless there's a something in the ...etc we are compelled to agree with Billie Jean King:
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:01 pm2. There is nothing unique to being female: any current differences that appear to exist between men and women are socially constructed, not essential. This is a kind of 2nd Wave, Billie Jean King kind of position.
As to which is genuinely feminist, well, as long as your domestic possibility writer argues that she should be paid the same as a man with domestic possibility then who cares? Really feminism has not been about proving that women are unique and special, on the contrary, the main focus has been on demonstrating that men are not unique and special. There is nothing about being any man that makes you time worth more money and your opinion more worth a vote than any woman.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:30 pmOne thing we can see for sure: these claims are absolutely exclusive of one another. If there is even one thing that corresponds to #1, then #2 is obviously not true. If #2 is true, then there is no way that even one item can be true under #1.

And this is but the start of the question. There is a stage 2 when we have sorted out the right answer.

So we can all see it has to be #1 or #2. Which do you think it is, and why?
I think it's #2, because it's bleedin' obvious. Ok, onto stage 2.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 2:52 pmMy real question is about transsexualism, not Feminism...
So either way -- whether we believe in Gender Essentialism or refuse to believe in it, the rationally compassionate decision regarding transpeople is to help them to see that it's not rational or healthy for them to continue to attempt to become the TG -- for Equality Feminism says it's a false goal, and Uniqueness Feminism says it's impossible.
Mr Can, I do not claim to understand what possesses people to have traumatic surgery, but I imagine there are very few cases where the reason given is that a penis is compromising someone's domestic possibility. What on Earth makes you think that the 'unique and special' something that transgender aspirants believe they will gain or lose is any of the things you originally listed?
Post Reply