Gender Essentialism

[Dachshund]

I assure you that as a 'skeptic' who participates in many groups, my own arguments are extremely unwelcomed because the vast majority of the women in these groups are strong feminists who DO believe that you should 'ghost' those who disagree.

This is interesting to me.

Since many, maybe even most people use pseudonyms, are you thinking that there is a distinctively "feminine" style of argumentation? That would argue in favour of some kind of essentialism, it would seem, if true.

It's sad for me to note this because I was one of those 'equal' feminists growning up. I've changed given today's change in HOW feminists are advocating with strictness.

The qualities that is treated as 'feminine' or 'effeminate' are only descriptive of the averages in cultrual beliefs about what men and women are by default of traditional stereotypes. Thus, 'crying', would be an effeminate behavior because men, ...even by the standards of many feminists, should NOT do this. I believe these qualities are not about actual sex differences by individual basis but about literal factors as individuals regardless of sex. So anyone can use 'silence' as a weapon. But the quality of stereotypes that FAVOR women, like ignoring (ghosting), are accepted by these feminists as appropriate behavior that should not be dropped,....just as they believe women who prefer to dress how they like regardless of the social message they are conveying upon those stereotypes are also dismissed.

Given that the very general stereotype of the female's major 'weapon' is itself to be SILENT, their choice NOT to come here is itself a stereotypical female/feminine tactic that has been working in their favor.

So, one characteristic you would identify with the "female" style of argumentation would be "being silent," and another would be "ghosting." Have I got you correct? What else would you suggest?

Being silent IS 'ghosting'. But the term ghosting is also about enticing ALL others to agree to the ignoring and thus isolating those individuals that compete against their goals. They are taking their present Machivelian approach as a necessary evil as they believe they have no other choice to BE that strict in order to overthrow those in power they believe are keeping the negative stereotypes fixed. They are revolting in Marxian style. He was one who believed that at some moments in history, regardless of which ideal govenment takes power, they devolve to become abusive and there comes a point in which no change is actually possible without complete and utter advocacy without apology.....a "revolution" by force to overthrow the old system and start from scratch. This is what the feminists are doing today.

The men who agree, are usually those who both represent the stereotypical benefactors of the patriarchy women were against but support feminism because it actually redirects the associated guilt off them by distributing the loss upon the whole class, males, since they wouldn't actually have to pay the penalties themselves. It is thus in their interest to also go along with the 'ghosting' since it isolates them from those males who are now burdened to sacrifice (.....or rather, scapegoated).

Dear Scott and IC,




No, Scott... Planning Marxist- style revolutions to topple the "evil", White, male, power structure that dominates Western society is NOT what most women in the West who call themselves "feminists are doing.The Ideological feminists -formal theorists in the Western academy and the radical, gynocenrtric branches of the feminist movement do, however still advocate the type of "smash-the-patriarchy" revolutionary approach that you refer to, though they are thankfully a small minority and are not at all representative of mainstream feminist thinking in the US (NB: for the sake of convenience , I will use feminism in the US to represent Western feminism generally (i.e. the feminist movements in the UK; Australia, Canada, Western Europe, etc.) Also, as an adult, I only have personal experience of residing in the UK, Australia and US for any substantial lengths of time, so , I have no experience of feminism in any non-Western societies like Africa, Brazil, Japan, India , Russia or Vietnam, etc.



I think the feminist movement in the US has had a profound impact on American society, and I would like to break it down into two movements, the first being Equity (or liberal) feminism and the second being the new wave of feminism ("Radical (Gender) Feminism which emerged in the early 1960's and has dominated feminist ideology and academic theory over the past six decades to date). The first feminist movement dates back , strictly speaking, to Mary Wollstonecraft (Mary Shelley's mother) the wife of the English political philosopher (and anarchist) William Godwin in England in the late 18th century, and, more dramatically, to the feisty Suffragettes of late Victorian Britain and America. The focus of Equity feminism was on the goal of securing social, political and legal equality: equal pay for the same work; the right to vote; equal access to the same opportunities that were open to men, and so on. The Equity feminists were successful in their struggle and eventually secured the equal civil rights (political, social, economic, legal) that they demanded. One the whole, most reasonable people in the West today have no serious criticisms of the Equity feminist movement; it delivered outcomes that were good for women and also good for men. ( Though I must say, on a purely personal note, I still believe that giving women the right to vote was a catastrophic mistake, and there is evidence of this throughout all of American society today, though I will not say any more on the matter; if I did, I would doubtless be condemned as a Nazi, a fascist, a crazy White, male reactionary, etc. Suffice to say that when some of the great thinkers of the past: Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, Aristotle and Aquinas, amongst others, warned that allowing women to vote was an unthinkable proposition, which would, if it came to pass, "end in tears" - they were dead right!)



Now, with regard to the Second Wave of the feminist movement in the West, this was a "multi-flavoured" mixture of: "Radical Feminism"; "Marxist and Socialist Feminism"; Gender Feminism; Postmodern feminism; Eco-feminism; Post-structural feminism, Cultural feminism; Black feminism and other less prominent theories. Some Western feminist academics distinguish a Third and Fourth wave of the feminist movement, for example, categorising Postmodern and Post-Structuralist feminist theory as part of the Third wave, for reasons I will shortly explain, all of the so-called Third and Fourth waves of ideological feminism and formal feminist theory are basically grounded on the same fundamental political principles as the Second Wave movement. The foundational tenets of feminist ideology and theory in the Western academy are pretty much the same in 2019 as they were in 1963 (when Betty Friedan started the second wave ball rolling with her book, "The Feminine Mystique") and as they were throughout all the intervening decades: the 1970's; 1980's; 1990's; 2000 and 2010's.



I equate Second Wave feminism (1963 - 2019) with what was called "Radical (Gender) Feminism". (On a technical note, the American philosopher and feminist author, Ti-Grace Atkinson published a piece called "Radical Feminism" in 1969 that is often cited as the seminal work in the field). Radical (Gender) feminism has provided the bulwark for almost all ideological theoretical/academic thought in feminism beginning around the later half of the 1960's, and it is actually very easy to understand the basic principles of "Radical Feminism" because there are only two (2). The first boils down to six words: DESTROY THE WHITE, MALE, WESTERN PATRIARCHY. Destroy it now, use whatever means, (however violent, antisocial, unnatural, etc;) it takes, and remember nothing but total annihilation will be satisfactory.The second principle is that ALL psychological differences between males and females are socially/culturally constructed; that is NOT due to any innate biological differences between the sexes. That's all you need to know to have a thorough grasp the thinking behind the past 60 years of ideological/theoretical/academy feminism in the West. Believe it or not this is STILL the OFFICIAL IDEOLOGICAL/THEORETICAL POSITION of FEMINISM in 2019. Yes Sir, this is precisely the kind of crazy bullshit, feminist theorists in the academy are being very well- paid by you the average US tax-payer to churn out and teach to 19-year-old girls in Women's Studies courses on college.




RADICAL FEMINISM IN THE WEST IS INTRINSICALLY MARXIST




So , I divided Western feminism into two movements: (1) Equity (or Liberal) feminism which sought (successfully) to achieve equal civil rights for women, and worked within the structure of mainstream Western society in England and the United States; and, (2) "Radical Feminism" which was a revolutionary, Marxist - style, gynocentric, anti-Western, anti-Patriarchal assault on mainstream society in the West.




""Radical Feminism" grew out of the anti-war (Vietnam) and anti-government mood that spread through US college campus after 1965 (when LBJ escalated America's involvement in fighting the North Vietnamese communist insurgency). Students read communists like Marx and J.P. Sartre, neo-Marxist Critical theorist like Herbert Marcuse, the Marxist-based, so-called postmodern philosophy of Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida and revolutionary, social philosophers like Franz Fanon. It was in this hotbed of Marxist sympathies that "Radical (Gender) Feminism" was birthed, and its mission was - as Derrida taught - to destroy the "phallogocentric" Western patriarchy. Derrida and Foucault thought that everything boiled down to RAW POWER. The idea that civilized, human beings should sit down around a table and try to rationally and logically resolve their differences of opinion or disputes was rejected by Derrida. In his view, the side with the most power is the side that wins by crushing the less powerful opposing side - and that was all that mattered -, reason and rational discourse were redundant.




MAINSTREAM FEMINISM IN 2019




Although, as I say, "Radical (Gender) Feminism" still characterises the majority of Western feminist theory in academia and is the prevailing ideology, most women who identify as (nominal) "feminists" in America have washed their hands of it. So it seems to me that the Second Wave of the feminist movement has failed. For 60 years it has sought to destroy the White , male Western ("phallogocentric" patriarchy using every tactical and strategic combination and permutation it could manage to come up with; and their is no doubt "Radical Feminism" inflicted serious damage on the very fabric of Western society. It succeed in: undermining the institution of Christian marriage and precipitated a dramatic fall in the marriage rate among young, White Americans; dramatically increasing divorce rates, which have been sent soaring since the first half of the 1970s when Radical Feminists succeeded in spreading so-called "No Fault" divorce legislation throughout all 50 American States; generating high rates of illegitimacy; promoting a rapid growth in the number of single parent (mostly single mother)American families; effecting a sharp escalation in juvenile delinquency, educational failure, substance abuse and diagnosed psychiatric disorders among children from broken homes, in particular homes without fathers; inflating an ever ballooning Welfare State to pay for the social pathologies it created: widespread poverty among single mothers and the costs of government subsidised medical treatment and a host of other supportive social services for their psychologically damaged children, 300 million abortions since 1973 (enough to put a smile on any Radical (Gender) Feminists face !) a disproportionately high rate of adult male suicide and opioid abuse/addiction in the US, much of which I would attribute the role "Radical (Gender) Feminism has played in the destabilisation/destruction of the traditional, nuclear family, a legal system heavily stacked in favour of women in judgements of alimony payment/child support payments and the constant shrill chorus of venomous abuse in the media, at work and the public domain generally which denounces white, American men as "rapists", " sexual abusers" (#ME TOO"), "malevolent misogynists", and brands masculinity as innately "toxic.", etc




Radical Feminism in the US today is now thank God (!) de-fanged; and feminism, general speaking, has become a vapid and banal affair. It is become merely a toothless, paper tiger. Why ? Because most sensible women were not prepared to accept the thesis of "Radical (Gender) Feminism, and so the movement lost its political moorings. In its quest for universality, feminism has now just become a catch-all term for self-empowerment and for individual success.




Equally most of the erstwhile, hard-core, Radical (Gender) feminists in the US "sold-out", they turned their backs on their values in order to gain assimilation - in other words they were co-opted into the mainstream White, male patriarchal establishment (Just like the young Mick Jagger and the "Rolling Stones", the "Jefferson Airplane" and "Up Against the Wall Motherfuckers"). They ditched their political/moral principles for the sake of access to personal power.




So what you have in the West in 2019 are lots of women in positions of power behaving just like men do. But this is NOT a defeat of the patriarchy...it is just the patriarchy with women in it.





THE ASTONISHING MADNESS OF TODAY'S RADICAL FEMINIST IDEOLOGUES AND ACADEMIC THEORISTS





I must confess that I have a particular loathing for modern Radical (Gender) Feminist theoreticians in the academy. Firstly, it is near impossible to read their work because it is saturated with dense technical jargon, in exactly the way that the writing of the neo- Marxist, Postmodern philosophers like Derrida and Foucault is. I think that the best philosophical arguments have always been those are those that are be expressed in clear, simple English. Modern feminists feel they must try to disguise the lack of intellectual muscle in their arguments by "embellishing" them with 1000s of £5 adjectives and 20+ letter pieces of double Dutch. Secondly, they are paid very well for work that no one reads because almost everyone knows what they write is utter rubbish. If I may put my middle-class moralistic cap on, It infuriates me that for most of my working like I laboured long and hard in humble professions : chemistry teacher and employee retail pharmacist, I did no harm, I provided useful services for my community and I got slugged by the government in terms of the income tax I had to pay. In the case of today's feminist academics, however, they are very well paid to write Marxist propaganda that no one reads, and to teach 19 -year - old girls that: males and the Western patriarchy their own culture/civilization is rotten to the core and must be destroyed, that abortion is to be encouraged, that marriage is an oppressive misogynist institution, that all males are inherently rapists; that there is no such thing as objective morality or truth, that Enlightenment reason is an instrument of oppression wielded by males in the West to subjugate their women; that gender is purely a social/cultural construct that has no biogenetic basis whatsoever and so on. How is it, these women - and there are lots of them in Universities across America are able to secure good salaries for writing and teaching this poisonous, nihilistic, irrational, nonsensical and scientifically FALSE garbage ? I simply don't geddit ?




Now that I got that off my chest, I will explain why the Radical Feminist ideologues and academics in the West today are all barking mad. From the mid-1960's to the present day ALL feminist politics has been absolutely anti-capitalist. Patriarchy is tightly wound up with capitalism in the modern West, thus for the Radical (Gender) Feminists the two must fall together. According to a number of today's Radical (Gender) philosophers modern feminism lost its radical political consciousness and de-fanged itself because the idea emerged that if feminists placed a lot more women in positions of power, somehow that would destroy the patriarchy, not understanding that the patriarchy has nothing to do with men (?!) They argue that if women in power behave like men (e.g. Margaret Thatcher), that is not a defeat for the patriarchy, that's just the patriarchy with some women in it.




The root of the issue, they claim, is all to do with how we define "patriarchy." Their claim is that patriarchy is in essence a society structured by HIERARCHY. So unless that is reformed, unless society is reformed so there are no hierarchies of competence/dominance/power the feminist project will fail - the patriarchy will not be defeated. So all of this is simply the argument against capitalism and the values that undergird it. Ever since the dawn of the Second Wave of feminism, radical (gender) feminists have been singing the same song, which is that the white, male patriarchy is tightly intertwined with capitalism so there isn't a way of defeating one without defeating the other, hence the abundance of socialist, Marxist, neo-Marxist Critical theory, post-structuralist and deconstructionist (i.e. Marxist-based postmodern philosophy) that has consistently underpinned and permeated all of the different sub-stands of "Radical (Gender) Feminism" throughout the last 60 years of feminist theory. A revolution is required, these clowns are now arguing, not merely to eliminate the wicked, White , male, patriarchy but to level ALL social/cultural human hierarchies. I put it to you that this is utter insanity. But again this is nothing new...Germain Greer- CRAZY, Shulasmith Firestone - CRAZY, Kate Millett - Crazy, bell hooks - CRAZY, the "Redstockings" - CRAZY, Ti-Grace Atkinson - CRAZY, Gloria Steinem - CRAZY, Andrea Dworkin - VERY CRAZY, Naomi Wolfe - CRAZY, Hillary Clinton - CRAZY, Mary Daly - CRAZY, Janice Raymond - CrAZY, Jesse Helms - CRAZY and the list goes on.




It is insanity because human social hierarchies are completely unavoidable, they are, evolutionarily speaking, incredibly ancient, and this is an incontrovertible, hard scientific "fact-in-the-bag", - no mainstream scientist disputes it !. But not only is the production of hierarchies the result of ancient "hard-wiring", they are inevitable given the fact that that people of unequal abilities strive for the same goals. Social hierarchies are necessary for people to live meaningful lives. Because it is true that the collective pursuit of any valued goal produces a hierarchy (as some will be better and some worse at the pursuit no matter what it is) and because it it is the pursuit of goals that in large part lends life its sustaining meaning. We experience almost all the emotions that make life deep and engaging as a consequence of moving successfully towards something deeply desired and valued. The price we must pay for that involvement is the inevitable creation of hierarchies of success, with the inevitable consequence of differences in outcome. From this, it follows that a sociopolitical project designed to to destroy all human social hierarchies in order to create absolute equality would require the sacrifice of value itself - and then, of course, there would be nothing worth living for.




The insane and utterly incomprehensible claim of Radical, Marxist/Deconstructionist (Gender) feminists, that all gender differences are wholly socially constructed, and constituted a cloaked means of keeping women oppressed is pure madness ! The differences between the sexes are as deeply rooted in nature as anything could possibly be. It is true that the primary hierarchical structure of society is masculine, HOWEVER, there is not a shred of hard evidence that Western society is pathologically patriarchal, or that the prime lesson of history is that man, rather than nature, were the primary source of oppression of women (rather than, as in most cases, their supporters and partners and protectors). Nor is there a shred of hard evidence that all hierarchies - including the hierarchical advantage of increased power that men have over women in most societies - are BASED on power and aimed at exclusion. Do male tigers and chimps oppress female tigers and chimps ? Should their hierarchies be upended ?



Kindest Regards



Dachshund (Der Uberweiner) WOOF !! WOOF !!.............................(Beware the dog)

[Sculptor]

I have been explicitly clear that I see no reason to suppose there is any "essence" involved at all.

In that case, transgenderism is about nothing.

There are no '"genders," so there is not only no "need" of a person "switching": there's no possibility of it, because there's neither a base gender nor a target gender. Neither is real.

Because you accidentally forgot to include a line in that quote...
What I have disputed is the assumption that essence is required for there to be difference.

At the moment you are just dogmatically asserting that there is such a requirement.

Immanuel Can is just too dull to understand or accept that things are in constant change and refuse to comply with his narrow set of definitions.
He confuses "definition" with "essence" believing that things in the real world have to fit into his understanding of words.

[Immanuel Can]

IF non-essentialism requires that there is no such thing as gender, then it requires there is no such thing as chairs.

Not true, because "chairs" and "gender" have nothing to do with one another. But let's imagine they do, just for fun.

Still, what you are arguing is something moot. It doesn't matter whether Gender Essentialism is true, and it doesn't matter whether Gender Non-Essentialism is true. The thesis is that, in BOTH cases, transgender aspirations cannot be made to make any sense.

So let's pretend I grant you Non-Essentialism, 100%. Yep, you're right. There's no Essentialism. We should all be Non-Essentialists, let's say. Good.

In that case, my thesis is still correct. It's not Essentialism-dependent. It works every bit as well, and perhaps even better, if Non-Essentialism is true.

Get that? I don't care whether Essentialism is true or false, because I've shown how, WHATEVER IS TRUE, transgenderism is still not rationalizable. And that's why, if you're going to refute the thesis, you need to show that transgender aspirations CAN be made cogent, and on precisely what terms they can. Pick Essentialism if you prefer. Pick Non-Essentialism if you prefer. I personally don't care which you choose to believe. It's not the issue in hand.

Transgenderism is irrational. That's the thesis here. If you think that's not so, you need to offer some line of reasoning or evidence that proves that it's not. Bashing Gender Essentialism won't achieve that, because Gender Non-Essentialism still makes transgenderism irrational, as I have already shown.

Prove it wrong, if you can. If you cannot, then just what is your point?

[FlashDangerpants]

What I have disputed is the assumption that essence is required for there to be difference.

Then what you're having, perhaps, is just a problem with understanding the meaning of the philosophical words.

Essence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Essence (disambiguation).

"In philosophy, essence is the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity."

We're making limited progress. So let's do some of those dichotomies you like. See the above definition of essence. According to that definition of essence, all things are fundamentally what they are due to to essence. If they are a thing, they have the essence of the thing.

dichotoomy 1. Either your claims regarding essence do include the phrase "make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is", or they did not.

Dichotomy 2. Either chairs are fundamentally chairs, or chairs are not fundamentally chairs. Pick one, see if I care, this essence thing is your thing not mine.

Dichotomy 3. Assuming you are of the "essence camp" (and bearing in mind I don't care either way right now)... either a chair can be converted into a table, or a chair can never become a table at all.

Dichotomy 4. Assuming you are not of the "essence camp" (and bearing in mind I don't care either way right now)... either a chair can be converted into a table, or a chair can never become a table at all.

Dichotomy 5. Either nothing can become any other thing (because the other thing has a difference essence), or things can become other things (whether by changing their essence or because all this talk of essence was bullshit from the very beinning).

Sort yourself out, then let's see where this gets us.

[Immanuel Can]

Assuming you are of the "essence camp" (and bearing in mind I don't care either way right now)...

Right. Finally we're on the same page. I don't care whether you're a Gender Essentialist or not either. That's why I let everybody weigh in on either side, before I asked my question. It's not going to change the outcome, either way. It's just going to make a difference to how one gets to the same conclusion.

Now, since neither of us cares about Gender Essentialism or Non-Essentialism, and since it makes no difference to the thesis of this post, do you have anything relevant to offer regarding the issue of whether or not transgenderism can be articulated rationally?

[FlashDangerpants]

Assuming you are of the "essence camp" (and bearing in mind I don't care either way right now)...

Right. Finally we're on the same page. I don't care whether you're a Gender Essentialist or not either. That's why I let everybody weigh in on either side, before I asked my question. It's not going to change the outcome, either way. It's just going to make a difference to how one gets to the same conclusion.

Now, since neither of us cares about Gender Essentialism or Non-Essentialism, and since it makes no difference to the thesis of this post, do you have anything relevant to offer regarding the issue of whether or not transgenderism can be articulated rationally?

Yes. This is easy, but you will have to stop dodging the basic facts. Essentialism is irrelevant because things can move from one category into another. If essentialism says things cannot move from one category to another, it is clearly and obviously wrong. In being wrong, nothing is demonstrated about categories not existing at all, they still do as long as they are useful for describing things, which they very clearly are.

So it doesn't matter whether we describe that transformation as getting a new essence, or we just discard this silly notion of essences altogether. Things can start as one thing and become other things. Your argument about essentialism is therefore exactly as irrelevant as essentialism is. If you can't get your head around this, please refer to the exciting list of dichotomies I provided already.

[Immanuel Can]

...nothing is demonstrated about categories not existing at all, they still do as long as they are useful for describing things, which they very clearly are.

The question is whether the "categories" are nothing more than a human convention (Non-Essentialism), or are human attempts to refer to a reality about the nature of the entity in question (Essentialism). You say the former, and others may say the latter. But again, it doesn't matter. The issue still seems hopelessly vexed for transgenderism, whichever option we choose.

Things can start as one thing and become other things.

Well, not really. That's a misleading claim, if it's not nuanced better.

Things can start as one thing and become whatever is inherently possible for that one thing to become. But it's no more flexible than that. A boy can become a man. A boy can't become a tree, a dog, a rock, or a unicorn. That's obvious.

So now, what is your rationalization for transgenderism, premised on your Non-Essentialist platform?

[FlashDangerpants]

...nothing is demonstrated about categories not existing at all, they still do as long as they are useful for describing things, which they very clearly are.

The question is whether the "categories" are nothing more than a human convention (Non-Essentialism), or are human attempts to refer to a reality about the nature of the entity in question (Essentialism). You say the former, and others may say the latter. But again, it doesn't matter. The issue still seems hopelessly vexed for transgenderism, whichever option we choose.

If that's true, at least if it were true for the reasons you have given, it would be true for the chair turning into a table as well.

The chair is either a chair as a matter of categorical essence, or it is chair just because it is a chair sort of object according to how we call these things and people looking at it would agree it is by and large for sitting on. The chair can be transformed very simply into a table, again, irrespective of whether you have misunderstood the implications of essentialism, or whether you have grossly inflated the implications of it being a garbage theory.

Things can start as one thing and become other things.

Well, not really. That's a misleading claim, if it's not nuanced better.

Things can start as one thing and become whatever is inherently possible for that one thing to become. But it's no more flexible than that. A boy can become a man. A boy can't become a tree, a dog, a rock, or a unicorn. That's obvious.

Anything that an object can become is automatically something it inherently can become. So if a chair becomes a table because a carpenter chops a bit off the back and sands down a surface, then that must have been inherently possible, it certainly wasn't impossible. If a man becomes a woman because some stuff is chopped off and whatever other things are done in these situations, then that must have been inherently possible too.

Without the essence nonsense, you have no grounds to declare it less inherently possible for one thing to change into somethinge else than any other. If it changes in practice, it changed and therefore it was possible, inherently or otherwise.

So now, what is your rationalization for transgenderism, premised on your Non-Essentialist platform?

My answer to that hasn't changed since before, I don't have to make up weird arguments just to deconstruct your weird argument.

[Immanuel Can]

If that's true, at least if it were true for the reasons you have given, it would be true for the chair turning into a table as well.

No. Because chairs are defined functionally, as are tables. And then don't actually "turn into" other things, they just get employed in different ways. Because they're defined functionally, their identity is relative to use. Such is not the case with human beings. They are not functional objects whose identity is merely defined by a function.

Again, if you think "woman" can be defined functionally, I'd be interested in seeing you do that.

The chair can be transformed very simply into a table,

No, no...that's a misunderstanding. It's not "transformed into" anything. It's function changes, in that case, but its identity remains stable. If it is essentially a "four legged wood structure," it remains a "four legged wood structure" whether you sit on it or eat off it. Nothing is transformed thereby, unless utility is the basis of identity...which is Functionalism.

If a man becomes a woman because some stuff is chopped off and whatever other things are done in these situations, then that must have been inherently possible too.

That begs the question. Is a "man with some stuff chopped off" a woman, or is he just a "man with some stuff chopped off"? We can't say it's become "possible" just because Bruce declares he's now Caitlin. It's more likely that it's NOT possible, but he wants us to declare it's happened when it hasn't.

So the question remains to be settled: IS he Kaitlin, or a body-dysmorphic individual? And, of course, you don't get to rule on that unilaterally. You need to prove that the obvious is not true -- namely, that Bruce isn't just a mentally-impaired, mangled male. So you now need to show that a mangled male IS a woman, and it follows that a natural woman is also then the equivalent of a mangled male.

Really? Are you going to argue for that?

Now, here's the problem. Non-Essentialism creates a different-but-equally problematic conundrum. If "man" is not a real thing with an essence, then a man cannot need to stop being one. He isn't one anyway, because "man" means nothing in particular. If woman is not a thing with a real essence, he cannot need to be one either: for woman is not a real thing distinct from a man. For in both cases, there is no real thing, no BG or TG for him to want to leave, or to become.

Without the essence nonsense, you have no grounds to declare it less inherently possible for one thing to change into somethinge else than any other.

This is where you're wrong. Actually, without believing in an essence of both, you cannot say that a "man" ever became a "woman." The terms literally have no meaning. They mean, essentially, nothing.

You're thinking that you can save the idea of transgendering merely by denying Essentialism. But logically, you can't, as you can now see. All you get is a different grounds for seeing that transgenderism is impossible.

Look at the paragraph above. If you deny the essential reality of "man" and "woman," there literally IS no such thing as "transgendering." There is neither base gender nor target gender for him to want or to get.

Get it now?

[henry quirk]

I can take wood and make a chair (I give the wood a particular form, and through form, a particular purpose). I can take the chair and repurpose it into a table (I give the wood a new form, and through form, a new purpose). The wood always remains wood (its essence is unchanged no matter the shape I force on it).

The essence of a man (manliness), the essence of a woman (womanliness) is little more complicated than 'substance' but these essences derive directly from ordered substance (a particular protein-DNA pairing comprising a chromosome pair that itself is nuthin' but tangible 'information').

Actually, when you get down to it: human essence 'is' information and nuthin' but.

So 'gender' (which is already pretty friggin' wiggly-roomy in its natural, normal binary form, thank you very much) is, or is a function of, that essence, that information, meaning: men are men, women are women, one cannot become the other except as essence itself, information itself, the chromosome itself can be changed.

Certainly, a man can pretend to be a woman, and vice versa, but the pretense is not transformation, (morning) wood is still wood no matter how much one reshapes it.

[FlashDangerpants]

If that's true, at least if it were true for the reasons you have given, it would be true for the chair turning into a table as well.

No. Because chairs are defined functionally, as are tables. And then don't actually "turn into" other things, they just get employed in different ways. Because they're defined functionally, their identity is relative to use. Such is not the case with human beings. They are not functional objects whose identity is merely defined by a function.

Do Ihave to remind you yet again of your own definition of essence?

Essence
"In philosophy, essence is the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity."

The chair MUST fundamentally be a chair because of some chair essence just as much as everything else is defined by essence. There is zero scope for some things to be defined by essence but not other things. The essence YOU CHOSE TO INVOKE is not optional for any sort of thing. Quit blatantly equivocating.

Again, if you think "woman" can be defined functionally, I'd be interested in seeing you do that.

The chair can be transformed very simply into a table,

No, no...that's a misunderstanding. It's not "transformed into" anything. It's function changes, in that case, but its identity remains stable. If it is essentially a "four legged wood structure," it remains a "four legged wood structure" whether you sit on it or eat off it. Nothing is transformed thereby, unless utility is the basis of identity...which is Functionalism.

It was a table, then it was a chair, or the other way round. It became a different thing. That's all that matters, that a thing can become a new thing.

It doesn't matter at all if you define that essentially or functionally, essentialism, any other ism, all are useless and demonstrably wrong if they cannot account for transformations of things into new things. If they are wrong, then their failure to account for transformation is of no interest, and has no consequences.

If a man becomes a woman because some stuff is chopped off and whatever other things are done in these situations, then that must have been inherently possible too.

That begs the question. Is a "man with some stuff chopped off" a woman, or is he just a "man with some stuff chopped off"? We can't say it's become "possible" just because Bruce declares he's now Caitlin. It's more likely that it's NOT possible, but he wants us to declare it's happened when it hasn't.

So the question remains to be settled: IS he Kaitlin, or a body-dysmorphic individual? And, of course, you don't get to rule on that unilaterally. You need to prove that the obvious is not true -- namely, that Bruce isn't just a mentally-impaired, mangled male. So you now need to show that a mangled male IS a woman, and it follows that a natural woman is also then the equivalent of a mangled male.

No, I don't have to expand into that area whatsoever.
All I have to do here is show that your argument from essentialism, where you try to claim essentialism justifies your prejudice whether it is right or wrong is nonsensical. Which we kind of established when you stopped applying the concepts of essentialism to such simple objects as tables. You can't turn the tables on me in such a manner, it is irational to support an argument by demanding some alternative argument.

Now, here's the problem. Non-Essentialism creates a different-but-equally problematic conundrum. If "man" is not a real thing with an essence, then a man cannot need to stop being one. He isn't one anyway, because "man" means nothing in particular. If woman is not a thing with a real essence, he cannot need to be one either: for woman is not a real thing distinct from a man. For in both cases, there is no real thing, no BG or TG for him to want to leave, or to become.

Unless man is a useful term we use to describe certain types of object in our world without any need for hocus pocus "essences" that add nothing to any conversation. In which case there is no problem here at all.

Without the essence nonsense, you have no grounds to declare it less inherently possible for one thing to change into somethinge else than any other.

This is where you're wrong. Actually, without believing in an essence of both, you cannot say that a "man" ever became a "woman." The terms literally have no meaning. They mean, essentially, nothing.

Ah, but in that case words like transformation mean "essentially" nothing.

You're thinking that you can save the idea of transgendering merely by denying Essentialism. But logically, you can't, as you can now see. All you get is a different grounds for seeing that transgenderism is impossible.

That's not what I am doing. There might be a problem with transgendering, but your argument has deteriorated into a very predictable farce, so it is not a deciding factor at all. Denying essentialism is a whole other thing, if it can't cope with tables being transformed into chairs it's worthless shit.

Look at the paragraph above. If you deny the essential reality of "man" and "woman," there literally IS no such thing as "transgendering." There is neither base gender nor target gender for him to want or to get.

Get it now?

Dichotomy 5. Either nothing can become any other thing (because the other thing has a difference essence), or things can become other things (whether by changing their essence or because all this talk of essence was bullshit from the very beinning).

[FlashDangerpants]

I can take wood and make a chair (I give the wood a particular form, and through form, a particular purpose). I can take the chair and repurpose it into a table (I give the wood a new form, and through form, a new purpose). The wood always remains wood (its essence is unchanged no matter the shape I force on it).

That's fun. the chair still is a thing and by the defintion of essence under which Mannie's argument works, that's a chair with chair essence. the wood and its wood essence is an unrelated matter (geddit).

The essence of a man (manliness), the essence of a woman (womanliness) is little more complicated than 'substance' but these essences derive directly from ordered substance (a particular protein-DNA pairing comprising a chromosome pair that itself is nuthin' but tangible 'information').[

Actually, when you get down to it: human essence 'is' information and nuthin' but.

So 'gender' (which is already pretty friggin' wiggly-roomy in its natural, normal binary form, thank you very much) is, or is a function of, that essence, that information, meaning: men are men, women are women, one cannot become the other except as essence itself, information itself, the chromosome itself can be changed.

Certainly, a man can pretend to be a woman, and vice versa, but the pretense is not transformation, (morning) wood is still wood no matter how much one reshapes it.

Well there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to invoke spooky essences if we are just going to say men can't become women becuse they don't have the right chromosome arrangement. That's just saying that men and women are scientifically different.

[henry quirk]

"Mannie's argument"

It's sound, I think. It's his choice of 'essence' that's the problem: it muddies the waters.

#


"Well there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to invoke spooky essences if we are just going to say men can't become women becuse they don't have the right chromosome arrangement. That's just saying that men and women are scientifically different."

Well, as a Crom-lover (and he don't love me back) I'm all about spooky essences, and souls and sparks and whatnot, but -- in this thread -- I don't have to make an appeal to the arcane. It's simple and straightforward: XX dictates a particular set of bio-characteristics from which a set of psyche-characteristics extend. This package is 'woman'. XY dictates a particular set of bio-characteristics from which a set of psyche-characteristics extend. This package is 'man'. And never the twain shall meet ('cept 'tween the sheets).

[FlashDangerpants]

"Mannie's argument"

It's sound, I think. It's his choice of 'essence' that's the problem: it muddies the waters.

It depends on the essence thing though, so it is a stone cold failure if that desn't work.

"Well there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to invoke spooky essences if we are just going to say men can't become women becuse they don't have the right chromosome arrangement. That's just saying that men and women are scientifically different."

Well, as a Crom-lover (and he don't love me back) I'm all about spooky essences, and souls and sparks and whatnot, but -- in this thread -- I don't have to make an appeal to the arcane. It's simple and straightforward: XX dictates a particular set of bio-characteristics from which a set of psyche-characteristics extend. This package is 'woman'. XY dictates a particular set of bio-characteristics from which a set of psyche-characteristics extend. This package is 'man'. And never the twain shall meet ('cept 'tween the sheets).

I'm sure that's quite a normal point of view (not the Crom bit, but the rest). But it's not terribly important that a guy somewhere thinks only owners of a Y can be legitimate weilders of a V. You are entitled to not put your D in there and I don't really have any issue with that. I don't even know if Transexuals actually object to such a view on the whole, I would expect them to be busy with other stuff. After all, it's just semantics whether lack of such items as reproductive capacity and a chromosome means they aren't women at all, or just don't have some biological thing common to other women. Your position is your rightful opinion on that matter and you are quite entitled to it so far as I can see.

What Mannie is trying to do though is sinister. He wants to label other people's life choices and self images as a mental disease, by definition, without reference to any symptom or any psychiatric assessment of the individuals concerned. That's a throwback to some darker times that should not be revived.

Nonetheless, a working, fully valid and extremely sound argument would be an absolute minimum requirement for his project. I posit that a man who is too afraid to answer a question about whether a chair has essence and will be so craven as to blankly ignore repeated quotes of himself writing that all things have essence ... well he may not be on the right track for that.

[Nick_A]

"Mannie's argument"

It's sound, I think. It's his choice of 'essence' that's the problem: it muddies the waters.

#


"Well there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to invoke spooky essences if we are just going to say men can't become women becuse they don't have the right chromosome arrangement. That's just saying that men and women are scientifically different."

Well, as a Crom-lover (and he don't love me back) I'm all about spooky essences, and souls and sparks and whatnot, but -- in this thread -- I don't have to make an appeal to the arcane. It's simple and straightforward: XX dictates a particular set of bio-characteristics from which a set of psyche-characteristics extend. This package is 'woman'. XY dictates a particular set of bio-characteristics from which a set of psyche-characteristics extend. This package is 'man'. And never the twain shall meet ('cept 'tween the sheets).

This isn't so easy Henry. You've read of Kant's question regarding a thing in itself. What is a woman as a thing in itself which we can call its essence? Is it just the outer body we can see and explore scientifically or is the essence of woman something different?

Did you know that there are fish that change their sex according to earthly needs? If fish can do it why can't a human have the potential to change sex if there is a cosmic or natural need for more men or women. If possible, why can't some be in-between male and female? We don't know since we don't know the essence of either male or female and unaware that they are two halves of the same whole. The point I'm making is that we are trying to understand physical phenomenon while ignorant of its source..It's incredible what we don't know.

If you don't believe how fish change sex I'll post a link:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12777833

Abstract
Protogynous hermaphroditism, female-to-male sex change, is well known among reef fishes where large males monopolize harems of females. When the dominant male disappears from a harem, the largest female may change sex within a few weeks. Recently, from experiments with some protogynous haremic fishes in which two males' cohabitated, it was confirmed that sexual behavior and gonads were completely reversible according to individual social status. However, the ability to reverse secondary-developed sexual body coloration has never been examined in any protogynous fish. We conducted two male cohabitation experiments with the protogynous haremic angelfish, Centropyge ferrugata, which has conspicuous sexual dichromatism on the dorsal fin. Smaller males of C. ferrugata soon performed female-specific mating behaviors when they became subordinated after losing a contest. They then completed gonadal sex change to females 47 or 89 d (n=2) after beginning cohabitation. In the course of the reversed gonadal sex change, male-specific coloration on the dorsal fin changed to that of a female. Thus, the sex of C. ferrugata, including secondary developed sexually dichromatic characteristics, can be completely reversible in accord with their social status.