Gender Essentialism

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 7:32 pm
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:14 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:31 am

As I said;
Besides the sexual organs of the physical body there is NO difference at all between men and women. Unless of course some thing can be shown otherwise.

You have not shown anything otherwise.
I believe I just did.
You are free to believe whatever you like, but do not forget that what you believe is true, is not necessarily true, right, nor correct?
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:14 pm
Therefore, to me, from what I have observed, there is no difference at all between men and women besides the sexual organs of the physical body.
The "sexual organs" are the result of genetics, so that statement, of course is scientifically absurd and denialistic.
How is what I said here absurd and denialistic to you? .

What do you assume and/or believe I am denying exactly?

Of course the sexual organs are the result of genetics. That can be clearly seen in what I said
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:14 pmWhether we are talking male or female humans, or male and females of any other species; such as peacocks; the observable differences are the result of genetics..
That is EXACTLY what I have been saying.
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:14 pmhttps://www.scribd.com/document/6754889 ... cent-Males
This observation will obviously remain the same until you or another shows anything differently.
It has, no offense but your assertion is as ridiculous as denying 9th grade biology..
What are you even on about?

It appears that you do not even know or understand what I am asserting here.
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:14 pmWhat causes the sex organs to develop the way they do to begin with?
Genetics.
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:14 pm It's not like the stork just waives a "magic wand" and decides to give baby A male organs, and baby B female organs when he delivers them to mommy and daddy.

In the context of human potential, it's obvious that individual men and women can excel at things that others can't, there are male and female chess masters, male and female celebrity chefs, male and female athletes, male and female artists, male and female entrepreneurs, and so on..
This is also EXACTLY what I have been saying as well.
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:14 pmRegardless, this has no bearing on the reality of biology, and has more to do with culture, philosophy, and human potential, and since most of the arguments here just boil down to immature clichés and stereotypes which aren't even true to begin with, outside perhaps of very limited social contexts, I find it not worth commenting on.
I do not even know what you are commenting on.

You apoear to be saying that I am wrong, but you write as though you agree with exactly what I have been, and am, saying here.
Sort version, there are other complex and delicate physical or biochemical differences beyond merely the "visible sex organs", for example, while the outdated myth that testosterone is strictly the "male sex hormone", with it, in reality existing both in men and women, with levels varying (e.x. a female pro athlete, may actually have higher testosterone than an "average" male), women in general tend to have more estrogen, and men more testosterone.

Likewise, there are other physical differences and nuances, such as bone structure (e.x. the bone structure of the hips in men and women is different).
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Age »

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 7:41 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 7:32 pm
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:14 pm
I believe I just did.
You are free to believe whatever you like, but do not forget that what you believe is true, is not necessarily true, right, nor correct?
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:14 pm The "sexual organs" are the result of genetics, so that statement, of course is scientifically absurd and denialistic.
How is what I said here absurd and denialistic to you? .

What do you assume and/or believe I am denying exactly?

Of course the sexual organs are the result of genetics. That can be clearly seen in what I said
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:14 pmWhether we are talking male or female humans, or male and females of any other species; such as peacocks; the observable differences are the result of genetics..
That is EXACTLY what I have been saying.
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:14 pmhttps://www.scribd.com/document/6754889 ... cent-Males


It has, no offense but your assertion is as ridiculous as denying 9th grade biology..
What are you even on about?

It appears that you do not even know or understand what I am asserting here.
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:14 pmWhat causes the sex organs to develop the way they do to begin with?
Genetics.
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:14 pm It's not like the stork just waives a "magic wand" and decides to give baby A male organs, and baby B female organs when he delivers them to mommy and daddy.

In the context of human potential, it's obvious that individual men and women can excel at things that others can't, there are male and female chess masters, male and female celebrity chefs, male and female athletes, male and female artists, male and female entrepreneurs, and so on..
This is also EXACTLY what I have been saying as well.
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:14 pmRegardless, this has no bearing on the reality of biology, and has more to do with culture, philosophy, and human potential, and since most of the arguments here just boil down to immature clichés and stereotypes which aren't even true to begin with, outside perhaps of very limited social contexts, I find it not worth commenting on.
I do not even know what you are commenting on.

You apoear to be saying that I am wrong, but you write as though you agree with exactly what I have been, and am, saying here.
Sort version, there are other complex and delicate physical or biochemical differences beyond merely the "visible sex organs", for example, while the outdated myth that testosterone is strictly the "male sex hormone", with it, in reality existing both in men and women, with levels varying (e.x. a female pro athlete, may actually have higher testosterone than an "average" male), women in general tend to have more estrogen, and men more testosterone.
Your use of the words "in general" and "tend" here backs up and supports what I said even further.

If it is only "in general" and as such not a conclusive fact, then this strengthens what I said.
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 7:41 pmLikewise, there are other physical differences and nuances, such as bone structure (e.x. the bone structure of the hips in men and women is different).

Is this for absolutely EVERY one, or for some of them?

Is the bone structure of the hips in the bodies of those one's with male sexual organs absolutely and conclusively different in each and EVERY body with female sexual organs?
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 7:57 pm Your use of the words "in general" and "tend" here backs up and supports what I said even further.

If it is only "in general" and as such not a conclusive fact, then this strengthens what I said.
Then by the same token, asserting that women exclusively have a vagina or a uterus is a "generalization as well":

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/ ... nd-uterus/

For example, it is documented that person could be born with male genetics or "brain", but develop physical parts of a woman (this is the rationale behind many "transgender" arguments anyway, such as that a child could be born with a female body but a "male" brain, or vice versa).
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 7:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:29 pm So which of the views, 1 or 2, is the truth?
Neither.
Actually, that's totally logically impossible.

Either a thing is, or is not essentially unique in some way.

There IS no middle option there, no other way things could be.
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Age »

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 8:26 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 7:57 pm Your use of the words "in general" and "tend" here backs up and supports what I said even further.

If it is only "in general" and as such not a conclusive fact, then this strengthens what I said.
Then by the same token, asserting that women exclusively have a vagina or a uterus is a "generalization as well":
Is this really what you believe is the same token?

If yes, then okay.
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 8:26 pm
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/ ... nd-uterus/

For example, it is documented that person could be born with male genetics or "brain", but develop physical parts of a woman (this is the rationale behind many "transgender" arguments anyway, such as that a child could be born with a female body but a "male" brain, or vice versa).
Lol a male or female brain.

If there was such a thing, how does anyone distinguish between the two?

Also, what is it that you are trying to argue for or say here?

It appears that you are trying to say or argue that besides the sexual organs of the physical body there are other differences between men and women but then you write something like this: there are other complex and delicate physical or biochemical differences beyond merely the "visible sex organs", for example, while the outdated myth that testosterone is strictly the "male sex hormone", with it, in reality existing both in men and women, with levels varying (e.x. a female pro athlete, may actually have higher testosterone than an "average" male), Which, as I said earlier, only backs up and supports more what I am saying.

If you think or believe that; Besides the sexual organs of the physical body there is A difference between men and women, then just explain or show what this thing is, or things are. It really is this simple.

When, and IF, you provide any examples, then we will have some thing to look at, and then discuss. Until then, you are really not saying anything at all here.
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:06 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 7:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:29 pm So which of the views, 1 or 2, is the truth?
Neither.
Actually, that's totally logically impossible.

Either a thing is, or is not essentially unique in some way.
This may be true, in some sense, but also the way you express the 'uniqueness' may NOT be the way the 'uniqueness' actually exists, correct?

Therefore, my answer of NEITHER could be totally logically possible. But, if it is or not can only be discovered and KNOWN if one is OPEN to looking at it FIRST.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:06 am There IS no middle option there, no other way things could be.
If you believe there is NO other way things could be, other than the way of your very, very specific narrow and very short-sighted narrative descriptions, then so be it. But I easily see other options.

See, to me, to create a human, contrary to your belief, a male human body and a female human body are needed with functionally fertilized sexual organs. When these two bodies come together successfully, then a human body is created.

The human bodies with what is known as the male sexual organs were labeled 'men', and the ones with the female sexual organs were labeled 'women'. To me, there are no other distinguishing features that essentially distinguish between 'men' and 'women'.

Further to this, absolutely every human being is special, as each and every one is essentially uniquely different, but NO one is more nor less special than another, as each and every human being is essentially the same. As each one is made up of an obviously uniquely different body AND different thoughts.

Although each and every human being is essentially the same because each and every one of them is made up of essentially the same things, that is; A 'human body', and, A 'set of thoughts'. So, each and every human being is essentially unique, in the SAME way. As described, EVERY body is obviously uniquely different, and EVERY set of thoughts within each and EVERY body is also obviously uniquely different but each and EVERY human being is made up of the SAME things.

So, what can now be clearly seen is that human beings are NEITHER of your two only "pigeon-holing" very specific definitions.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:19 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:06 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 7:36 pm

Neither.
Actually, that's totally logically impossible.

Either a thing is, or is not essentially unique in some way.
This may be true, in some sense, but also the way you express the 'uniqueness' may NOT be the way the 'uniqueness' actually exists, correct?
No, not correct.

It's a yes-no question. It doesn't require that I "express" anything. Instead, it requires only YOU to know what YOU believe -- namely, is there ANY unique essence of femaleness, or none at all.

All or nothing. Yes or no. Logically speaking, that's as far as it needs to go; because whatever you pick, no matter what it is in particular, there's unique essence; or, if you say there's nothing, there's absolutely nothing.
Therefore, my answer of NEITHER could be totally logically possible.
No, not at all. It's still logically impossible that both something AND nothing could be the essence of the female.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:06 am There IS no middle option there, no other way things could be.
If you believe there is NO other way things could be, other than the way of your very, very specific narrow and very short-sighted narrative descriptions, then so be it. But I easily see other options.
"Other options"? Options between "there's something" and "there's nothing"? Give one.

But if you think for a second, you'll realize that rationally, you actually can't. It's impossible.

That's because you're wrong. Sorry, but that's how it is.
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:40 pm
Age wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:19 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:06 am
Actually, that's totally logically impossible.

Either a thing is, or is not essentially unique in some way.
This may be true, in some sense, but also the way you express the 'uniqueness' may NOT be the way the 'uniqueness' actually exists, correct?
No, not correct.

It's a yes-no question. It doesn't require that I "express" anything. Instead, it requires only YOU to know what YOU believe -- namely, is there ANY unique essence of femaleness, or none at all.
I do NOT 'believe' any thing. So what you said here is WRONG.

To me, what makes up the unique essence of 'femaleness' is the exact same thing that makes up the unique essence of 'maleness'. That 'unique essence' is, what I have been stating, the sexual organs of the human body.

By the way, how quick some people forget. Your question was NOT a yes-no question at all. Your question was specifically:
So which of the views, 1 or 2, is the truth?

Which can be clearly SEEN to NOT be a yes-no question at all.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:40 pm All or nothing. Yes or no. Logically speaking, that's as far as it needs to go; because whatever you pick, no matter what it is in particular, there's unique essence; or, if you say there's nothing, there's absolutely nothing.
I do NOT agree with either one of your very specific definitions or examples.

To me, neither one is correct.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:40 pm
Therefore, my answer of NEITHER could be totally logically possible.
No, not at all. It's still logically impossible that both something AND nothing could be the essence of the female.
I am not sure what you concentrate of "essence of the female" only for.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:40 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:06 am There IS no middle option there, no other way things could be.
If you believe there is NO other way things could be, other than the way of your very, very specific narrow and very short-sighted narrative descriptions, then so be it. But I easily see other options.
"Other options"? Options between "there's something" and "there's nothing"? Give one.
But, "there is something" or "there is nothing" is NOTHING like what your specific narrative descriptions talk about.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:40 pm But if you think for a second, you'll realize that rationally, you actually can't. It's impossible.
But I NEVER thought this now new conception can be realized rationally.

I have just pointed out that there are other options to your very specific narrative descriptions here, which, by the way, did not have any thing at all to do with whether "there is something" of "there is nothing".
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:40 pm That's because you're wrong. Sorry, but that's how it is.
If you believe so, then it is so.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 1:29 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:40 pm
Age wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:19 am This may be true, in some sense, but also the way you express the 'uniqueness' may NOT be the way the 'uniqueness' actually exists, correct?
No, not correct.

It's a yes-no question. It doesn't require that I "express" anything. Instead, it requires only YOU to know what YOU believe -- namely, is there ANY unique essence of femaleness, or none at all.
I do NOT 'believe' any thing.
I'm afraid this is rather transparent hairsplitting, and not at all to the point.

Substitute "know," "think," "estimate" or any other such word, and the problem is exactly the same: there's zero possibility of a middle ground. There is, or there is not, some quality that makes femaleness special relative to maleness.

In fact, you yourself go on to say,
To me, what makes up the unique essence of 'femaleness' is the exact same thing that makes up the unique essence of 'maleness'. That 'unique essence' is, what I have been stating, the sexual organs of the human body.

"Organs," you say. That's a start. You've now taken a position. To be female is to have particular "organs."

You're an essentialist. The essential feature of femaleness is to have female organs, you say.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:40 pm All or nothing. Yes or no. Logically speaking, that's as far as it needs to go; because whatever you pick, no matter what it is in particular, there's unique essence; or, if you say there's nothing, there's absolutely nothing.
I do NOT agree with either one of your very specific definitions or examples.
Be that as it may, your agreement is not required for this. Logic covers it. You depart from logic only by means of becoming illogical. Either there is something, or there is nothing. There is no other possibility.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:40 pm No, not at all. It's still logically impossible that both something AND nothing could be the essence of the female.
I am not sure what you concentrate of "essence of the female" only for.
Choose "maleness" if you prefer. The problem is identical: either there is something unique to being male, or there is nothing unique to being male. Again, there is no middle possibility.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:40 pm "Other options"? Options between "there's something" and "there's nothing"? Give one.
But, "there is something" or "there is nothing" is NOTHING like what your specific narrative descriptions talk about.
There were no "narrative descriptions," specific or otherwise, in anything I have said to you. And now I begin to wonder if you know what a "narrative" or a "description" actually are... :?

But let that be. More importantly, you'll recall I challenged you: "But if you think for a second, you'll realize that rationally, you actually can't. It's impossible."

And you couldn't give me any. And why couldn't you? Because nobody could. It's impossible.
If you believe so, then it is so.
This belief you attribute to me is, in this matter, no more relevant than your agreement. If logic says it's so, it's so. That's all there is to it.

Logic says it's so.
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am
Age wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 1:29 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:40 pm
No, not correct.

It's a yes-no question. It doesn't require that I "express" anything. Instead, it requires only YOU to know what YOU believe -- namely, is there ANY unique essence of femaleness, or none at all.
I do NOT 'believe' any thing.
I'm afraid this is rather transparent hairsplitting, and not at all to the point.
If you make the claim that I believe some thing, then I will inform you of what the actual Truth IS. The Truth IS I do NOT believe any thing. I know I say this a lot, but some people are absolutely deaf to this, or just very forgetful. Or, are just very disbelieving, which if they are PROVES what I have actually been saying and pointing out.

By the way, informing people of what the actual Truth IS is not "hairsplitting".
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am Substitute "know," "think," "estimate" or any other such word, and the problem is exactly the same: there's zero possibility of a middle ground. There is, or there is not, some quality that makes femaleness special relative to maleness.
Well, I have already said what this enough times now.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am In fact, you yourself go on to say,
To me, what makes up the unique essence of 'femaleness' is the exact same thing that makes up the unique essence of 'maleness'. That 'unique essence' is, what I have been stating, the sexual organs of the human body.

"Organs," you say.
Yes that is what I say.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am That's a start.
Well I have been this saying this exact same thing from the start.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am You've now taken a position.
Are you blind, as well as deaf? I have not "now" taken a position. I have been saying the exact same thing consistently my very first response here.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am To be female is to have particular "organs."

You're an essentialist.
Just to inform you of what thee actual Truth IS; I am NOT an 'essentialist'. Now let us hope you see, hear and comprehend this fact.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am The essential feature of femaleness is to have female organs, you say.

I do NOT agree with either one of your very specific definitions or examples.
Be that as it may, your agreement is not required for this. Logic covers it.
If you say and believe so.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am You depart from logic only by means of becoming illogical.
Is there any other way to depart from logic other than by means of becoming illogical?

If there is, then what are those ways?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am Either there is something, or there is nothing. There is no other possibility.
This 'black or white' or 'either or' thinking is why you are stuck in your obviously wrong conceptions.

I have already explained HOW and WHY every body is essentially equal because they are essentially unique.

It is because of their own special uniqueness, which makes them essentially the same, which is obviously a 3rd option to your limited view of things here.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am

I am not sure what you concentrate of "essence of the female" only for.
Choose "maleness" if you prefer. The problem is identical: either there is something unique to being male, or there is nothing unique to being male. Again, there is no middle possibility.
Again, I have already told you what is unique is the sexual organs of the body. Can you really not understand this?

The only actual thing that makes a so called "male" a 'male' is the accepted male sexual organs. And, the only thing that makes a so called "female" a 'female' is the accepted female sexual organs.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am

But, "there is something" or "there is nothing" is NOTHING like what your specific narrative descriptions talk about.
There were no "narrative descriptions," specific or otherwise, in anything I have said to you. And now I begin to wonder if you know what a "narrative" or a "description" actually are... :?

But let that be. More importantly, you'll recall I challenged you: "But if you think for a second, you'll realize that rationally, you actually can't. It's impossible."

And you couldn't give me any. And why couldn't you? Because nobody could. It's impossible.
Obviously you did NOT read what i wrote, because if you did you, then you would not have written this.

I replied to your so call "challenge" with this: But I NEVER thought this now new conception can be realized rationally.

I NEVER thought "for a second" that I will realize that rationally. So, you thinking or assuming that I did or would is just a story of your own making, which never took place and probably never will as.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am
If you believe so, then it is so.
This belief you attribute to me is, in this matter, no more relevant than your agreement. If logic says it's so, it's so. That's all there is to it.

Logic says it's so.
And I have NEVER said, nor even, thought it is not so, which can be clearly seen and proven in what I have written so far.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 7:49 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am
Age wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 1:29 am

I do NOT 'believe' any thing.
I'm afraid this is rather transparent hairsplitting, and not at all to the point.
If you make the claim that I believe some thing,
As I said, no point rests on my choice of the word "believe." Nothing worth talking about, anyway. You can substitute any synonym, and you will not address the problem one bit thereby.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am You've now taken a position. To be female is to have particular "organs." You're an essentialist.
Just to inform you of what thee actual Truth IS; I am NOT an 'essentialist'.
Then you're very confused. Because you just claimed above, as anyone can see, that "organs" are the essential feature of femaleness. You insisted upon it most adamantly (and with insults attached, as if that made your point better :) ). That makes you an essentialist, whether you choose to recognize it or not.
I do NOT agree with either one of your very specific definitions or examples.
Be that as it may, your agreement is not required for this. Logic covers it.
If you say and believe so.
Again, your assent or my belief is not relevant here. Only logic is. Logic requires that you are an essentialist. So you can be one that admits you are, or only one that doesn't know it. But so long as you say "organs" define the feminine, you are an essentialist.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am Either there is something, or there is nothing. There is no other possibility.
This 'black or white' or 'either or' thinking is why you are stuck in your obviously wrong conceptions.
Well, it would be naive to think that black and white thinking is always wrong. It's wrong only when one is not dealing with black and white. When one is, it's the only logical possibility.

A perfect case of correct "black and white" thinking is in matters of existence/non-existence of a thing. To say that something "exists" at all is to say it doesn't "not-exist." And to say that something does "not exist" makes it necessary and inescapable that the thing in question must not "exist" at all.

Gender essentialism is such a question. It asks, "Does anything exist which makes the feminine distinct from the masculine?" That's necessary black-or-white thinking.

Pretending there's a middle ground in such a case is utterly impossible. One can only do it by not understanding the term "exist" at all.
I have already told you what is unique is the sexual organs of the body. Can you really not understand this?
I do. You're an essentialist. I get it.

Thanks for the answer.
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:15 pm
Age wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 7:49 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am
I'm afraid this is rather transparent hairsplitting, and not at all to the point.
If you make the claim that I believe some thing,
As I said, no point rests on my choice of the word "believe."
Except for the clearly obvious point that you are absolutely and totally utterly WRONG that is.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:15 pm Nothing worth talking about, anyway. You can substitute any synonym, and you will not address the problem one bit thereby.
But there is no actual 'problem' here anywhere. Of course except for the ones that you are making, which you can not solve.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:15 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:18 am You've now taken a position. To be female is to have particular "organs." You're an essentialist.
Just to inform you of what thee actual Truth IS; I am NOT an 'essentialist'.
Then you're very confused. Because you just claimed above, as anyone can see, that "organs" are the essential feature of femaleness.
Did you forget what else I have written, or do you just purposely detract away from that so you can hold onto your already beliefs?

What does, Unless of course some thing can be shown otherwise. actually mean to you?

I will tell you what this means to me. I am OPEN to what others have to say. Therefore, I am NOT an 'essentialist'. Any 'ist' is NOT open to any thing other than the 'ist' itself. 'I' am NOT any thing that ends in an 'ist'. In fact 'I' am NOT any thing other then who and what 'I' actually AM.

When you are able to answer the question 'Who and what am 'I'?' properly and correctly, then you are able to say who and what 'I' actually am, until then you will inevitably be WRONG, just like you are now.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:15 pm You insisted upon it most adamantly (and with insults attached, as if that made your point better :) ).
Yes I have insisted upon: Unless of course some thing can be shown otherwise.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:15 pm That makes you an essentialist, whether you choose to recognize it or not.
This clearly makes me NOT an "essentialist", whether you choose to recognize it or not.

See, unlike you I am completely OPEN, and remain so. Whereas you are very CLOSED and have a very specific agenda that you are trying to prove is true, right, and correct, I have absolutely NO agenda at all here.

You are obviously trying your hardest to squeeze us here into seeing and believing one or the other ONLY, so then you can then try to prove your biblical ideology as being absolutely true, right, and correct.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:15 pm

If you say and believe so.
Again, your assent or my belief is not relevant here. Only logic is. Logic requires that you are an essentialist. So you can be one that admits you are, or only one that doesn't know it. But so long as you say "organs" define the feminine, you are an essentialist.
If you say and believe so, then it must be so, to you, alone. I really do not care.

You can try as hard as you like to "pigeon-hole" me into some little compartmentalized box of your own making, but it just will not work in relation to what is actually true, right, and correct.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:15 pm
This 'black or white' or 'either or' thinking is why you are stuck in your obviously wrong conceptions.
Well, it would be naive to think that black and white thinking is always wrong. It's wrong only when one is not dealing with black and white. When one is, it's the only logical possibility.
And would you like to once again show this "black" from "white" views of yours here, which you say EVERYONE must believe "one" or the "other" again?

Clearly there are other views and options, but just as clear is the fact that if one has very 'black and white' thinking, then they would not be able to see these other views and other options.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:15 pm A perfect case of correct "black and white" thinking is in matters of existence/non-existence of a thing.
But I have not been talking about the existence/non-existence of a thing.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:15 pm To say that something "exists" at all is to say it doesn't "not-exist." And to say that something does "not exist" makes it necessary and inescapable that the thing in question must not "exist" at all.
What are you seriously on about here?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:15 pm Gender essentialism is such a question. It asks, "Does anything exist which makes the feminine distinct from the masculine?" That's necessary black-or-white thinking.
So, does anything exist which makes the feminine distinct from the masculine, to you?

You are going on such a very long stream of thinking to just try and prove what you believe is already thee Truth.

By the way I can not think of anything, which makes the feminine distinct from the masculine, but that does not mean that there is not some thing. I will await your response.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:15 pm Pretending there's a middle ground in such a case is utterly impossible.
If you believe and say it is so, then it must be so, to you.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:15 pm One can only do it by not understanding the term "exist" at all.
Are you at all yet aware that you have to define the words that you are using first in order for you and/or others to KNOW, for sure, what exists or not, or even if anything exists or not? Or, have you not yet caught up with this necessary part of communication yet?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:15 pm
I have already told you what is unique is the sexual organs of the body. Can you really not understand this?
I do. You're an essentialist. I get it.
If this is what you got, then you certainly do NOT yet understand me at all.

What you believe I am, I am NOT.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:15 pm Thanks for the answer.
Your welcome. Would you now like to move onto the next part of your "argument" to prove those already held beliefs of yours?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 12:37 am I am completely OPEN, and remain so.
Sorry, that has nothing to do with whether or not you're an essentialist.
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 3:24 am
Age wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 12:37 am I am completely OPEN, and remain so.
Sorry, that has nothing to do with whether or not you're an essentialist.
You really do NOT read ALL of what I write, do you? Or, you obviously do NOT or can NOT understand what I write.

Obviously one can NOT be OPEN while they are believing some thing is true, right, and/or correct. To be some so called "essentialist" one would have to be believing some thing. I do not believe any thing is true, right, and/or correct. I am completely OPEN, and therefore, for those two reasons, I am NOT an "essentialist".

So, whether one is completely OPEN or not has a GREAT DEAL to do with whether or not one is an "essentialist".

So, you are absolutely and completely WRONG, once again. I am NOT an "essentialist" at all. So, you will either have to accept this or just move along.

Anyway, and besides all of this unnecessary stuff, Would you now like to move onto the next part of your "argument" to prove that those already held beliefs of yours are actually true, right, and correct?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 6:44 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 3:24 am
Age wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 12:37 am I am completely OPEN, and remain so.
Sorry, that has nothing to do with whether or not you're an essentialist.
You really do NOT read ALL of what I write, do you? Or, you obviously do NOT or can NOT understand what I write.

Obviously one can NOT be OPEN while they are believing some thing is true, right, and/or correct. To be some so called "essentialist" one would have to be believing some thing. I do not believe any thing is true, right, and/or correct. I am completely OPEN, and therefore, for those two reasons, I am NOT an "essentialist".
So now, you do not believe that "organs" define the difference between men and women? You want to say now that you got that bit wrong?

If you stand by it, you're an "essentialist." If you drop it now, you're inconsistent, but I'll accept that you are unable to detect any essential difference between men and women, and move on.

Which do you want to do?
Post Reply