If the axiom chairs are not tables is true, that doesn't require chairs to have any unique and essential properties that no item other than a chair has. It merely requires the term to be useful, perhaps because a chair is an object with a sum of properties that makes it worth describing that object as a chair.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:36 pmUmmm...right above.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:17 pmThat's just something you are assuming. Where is the argument to establish it?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 2:26 pm
Not at all. If there are zero essential traits of women, then it is inevitable logically that "gender" is a false construct, because it has to refer to zero real things, then.
And again, that's really just basic logic.
Why does every category of object have to have some unique "essence" that no other category can generate?
Because something is necessary in order for us to be able to distinguish an "object" from others. If there is no such feature, then everything is the same.
So, for example, if the axiom, "Women are not men" is true, it can only be because women are something essential that men quite simply are not. And if there is absolutely no such essential distinction, then women are just small men.
But all this is secondary, because it doesn't matter which definition -- Essentialist or Non-Essentialist -- one takes. Transgender ideology still won't make sense, in either case. And that's my point at the moment.
When you set this up, you required a unique and exclusive essential component. Your additional argument further requires some inconvertibility of that property. These are smuggled assumptions. You cannot possibly hope to apply this to all categories of all types, so you need to establish something whereby gender has a this unique special essence that other categories work perfectly well without having. Or you must argue that it is impossible to convert a table into a chair.