Gender Essentialism

[henry quirk]

That's an awful lot of words just to say: guys can't be girls, girls can't be guys (which, of course, is obvious to anyone botherin' to spend five minutes mullin' it over).

Anywho: I think we're gettin' close to the end of the gender fluidity experiment what with all manner of trannies 'transitioning' back to their original genders (that is: they're gettin' sane and recognizin' what they are instead of bein' loony and pretendin' to be what they're not).

I bet in five years the only trannies out & about will whackadoodles so out of it nuthin' short of lobotomies will help 'em.

[FlashDangerpants]

This thread is like a below average burlesque show, you may as well skip straight to the trannies.

What's your position, Flash?

Are you more sympathetic to the equality Feminists, or a uniqueness Feminists?

I still don't believe I really need one, and I have done zero research into whatever arguments support either theory (assuming you have presented either in fair terms). I think it's odd that I am being told I must choose from only two possible ideas when one of those is a second wave and the other a third. But I don't care enough to wonder what the first was.

Either way, obviously the categories of male and female are used because they are useful, and this implies there is a difference. There is clearly a mix of biological and social differences, and I see no reason why any particular one or any specific set would qualify as some sort of essence of womanhood.

So there is a TG, and there is a BG, and there is no essence. So that's all sorted out very nicely. You may now cease your concern for the mental welfare of people who want tolive their lives in ways that you don't.

[Scott Mayers]

It's interesting...right now, there's been 144 views.

Everybody can see the question. It's a mainstream Feminist question. It's a simple, straightforward question. And it's a question that has to have a definite answer, because anybody can reason that it HAS to be one or the other...there's literally no possibility of any third option.

How could lit possibly be, then, that so few are courageous enough to answer? Two, really... Henry, and the Woofer.

And why would that be...?

As Flash indicated: "The gender sub on this forum is mostly the work of incels and angry old men who have complicated misgivings about their mothers. There is pretty much nobody for you to discuss these 2nd and third wave feminist theories with here.

What's possibly telling is that you have chosen to have this discussion in the lair of dick-cheesemongers like Daschund and Nick who will totally agree with you, rather than going somewhere else in search of hairy ladies who care about this shit."

Many people feel this way and why many actually fear bothering to speak. If you are male speaking against some interpretation of feminism, to today's version of popularizing the need for laws to presume any woman to be defaulted to a FAITH in their claims that should reverse the onus of the those charged to be presumed guilty before proven innocent.

I agree in general with what you have to say so far on this topic. The distinguished difference of modern feminists versus the older version is about whether one is speakng of 'equality' or to their 'uniqueness' (identity). I disagree that there is not grey area in between by many though. For instance, my Prime Minister (Canada....Trudeau), believes in a confusing stance of both. For one, the uniqueness version that he espouses treats women and girls as discriminated against by men and boys intrinsically and by society. Of course since he is male, the absolute 'uniqueness' stance can become a form of "female supremacy". As such most argue today a mixed set of stances. They believe that one who is 'feminist' is about demanding equality but are neverless intrinsically unequal. That's the contradiction.

[Scott Mayers]

Here's an example that I think relates to the contradicting stances:

I saw a documentary by proponents of today's universities that claim to be demonstrating that being 'gay' is biological (nature) and not merely an environmental factor that may permit one to change their preferences. To me, the actual justification by those arguing FOR nature as defining one's sexual orientation is about desiring to alter their own family's religious organizations/institutes to favor them in God's eyes, like permitting homosexuals to "marry" rather than merely be defined as a "legal union".

The fallacy is about classification and likely intentional in certain parts. The arguments are posed against those religions that utilize 'correction' treatments to readjust their children's declared "preferences". To them (the religious parents), they see the act of 'being gay' is just an environmental factor. To the children arguing against their family and churches, they want to prove that their 'preference' is itself akin to how one might default to favor some kind of food. If you like chocolate, how can you force yourself to NOT want it?

But then this gets transferred to a false conclusion: that one who is gay has some genetic factor that makes them that way. The problem here is that one's favor can also be 'acquired'. The comparison of one's preference as being fixed at birth is not rational and actually dangerous thinking because it would justify OTHERS to presume one as BEING GAY simply for LOOKING GAY.

Those gays who defend the genetic factor are themselves following Darwinian behavior: those who HAPPEN to prefer being gay AND who have an external set of behaviors or aptitudes that FIT to their preference, presume that their own unique reality is universal across the spectra of all who have gender preferences. Thus the danger is about how their own thinking is falsely imposing a stereotype about all people who APPEAR as 'gay' to be a phenotypical indicator of their genetics. We all do this naturally though.....judge others based upon some external appearances of their state of being or their behavior. This 'genetic' argument would justify bullying one who 'looks gay' to be treated as though they MUST be gay. Then such persons would be bullied by the very environment to BE something they are NOT......for those who look or behave effeminately but are nevertheless straight. This actually has been a justification for women, for instance, to evade boys who are short....like those who 'fit' to the average height of a woman. The present 'feminist' extremes thus DO contribute to the "incel" extremes because they are now overtly bullied with a degree of acceptability that has not been even accepted in the past.

This is an example that directly relates to this issue. The argument for today's "uniqueness" is of a Multiculturalism (trademarked by an unusual definition than it appears) that relates to the general belief that some people based on external identity (phenotypes) have a genetic justification for action: That women and girls, for instance, along with those of a 'minority' status based upon their coinciding genetic factors, are understood as being discriminated with some unusual degree of hypocrisy.

I disagree with this belief. Equality of one's 'virtue' is often confused with genetically identifying factors. The modern 'Multiculturalists', thus, cover the issue with sex. The modern feminists treat what is feminine as a kind of RACIALIZED factor distinct from the masculine in that they treat ALL of those with identity as being male as one who must take OWNERSHIP of the qualities intrinsic to those males who have abused women as a class.

[Scott Mayers]

Here's an example that I think relates to the contradicting stances:

I saw a documentary by proponents of today's universities that claim to be demonstrating that being 'gay' is biological (nature) and not merely an environmental factor that may permit one to change their preferences. To me, the actual justification by those arguing FOR nature as defining one's sexual orientation is about desiring to alter their own family's religious organizations/institutes to favor them in God's eyes, like permitting homosexuals to "marry" rather than merely be defined as a "legal union".

The fallacy is about classification and likely intentional in certain parts. The arguments are posed against those religions that utilize 'correction' treatments to readjust their children's declared "preferences". To them (the religious parents), they see the act of 'being gay' is just an environmental factor. To the children arguing against their family and churches, they want to prove that their 'preference' is itself akin to how one might default to favor some kind of food. If you like chocolate, how can you force yourself to NOT want it?

But then this gets transferred to a false conclusion: that one who is gay has some genetic factor that makes them that way. The problem here is that one's favor can also be 'acquired'. The comparison of one's preference as being fixed at birth is not rational and actually dangerous thinking because it would justify OTHERS to presume one as BEING GAY simply for LOOKING GAY.

Those gays who defend the genetic factor are themselves following Darwinian behavior: those who HAPPEN to prefer being gay AND who have an external set of behaviors or aptitudes that FIT to their preference, presume that their own unique reality is universal across the spectra of all who have gender preferences. Thus the danger is about how their own thinking is falsely imposing a stereotype about all people who APPEAR as 'gay' to be a phenotypical indicator of their genetics. We all do this naturally though.....judge others based upon some external appearances of their state of being or their behavior. This 'genetic' argument would justify bullying one who 'looks gay' to be treated as though they MUST be gay. Then such persons would be bullied by the very environment to BE something they are NOT......for those who look or behave effeminately but are nevertheless straight. This actually has been a justification for women, for instance, to evade boys who are short....like those who 'fit' to the average height of a woman. The present 'feminist' extremes thus DO contribute to the "incel" extremes because they are now overtly bullied with a degree of acceptability that has not been even accepted in the past.

This is an example that directly relates to this issue. The argument for today's "uniqueness" is of a Multiculturalism (trademarked by an unusual definition than it appears) that relates to the general belief that some people based on external identity (phenotypes) have a genetic justification for action: That women and girls, for instance, along with those of a 'minority' status based upon their coinciding genetic factors, are understood as being discriminated with some unusual degree of hypocrisy.

I disagree with this belief. Equality of one's 'virtue' is often confused with genetically identifying factors. The modern 'Multiculturalists', thus, cover the issue with sex. The modern feminists treat what is feminine as a kind of RACIALIZED factor distinct from the masculine in that they treat ALL of those with identity as being male as one who must take OWNERSHIP of the qualities intrinsic to those males who have abused women as a class.

[Immanuel Can]

I still don't believe I really need one, and I have done zero research into whatever arguments support either theory (assuming you have presented either in fair terms). I think it's odd that I am being told I must choose

The answer to why you were being asked is very simple, Flash. If there is an essence of femaleness...ANY essence...then it is certainly, beyond any doubt, not true that there is NONE. But if there is NONE, then it is equally absolutely certain that there is not even ONE such basis of essential distinction.

So you could put it this way: is there anything women can contribute to the world that men simply cannot...or the reverse? If "yes," you're an essentialist. If "no," then you're not.

I am not telling you which you must believe at all. Choose either one. I'm just pointing out that it's evident that one or the other is right...and certain logical consequences follow, depending on which is right.

[Immanuel Can]

As Flash indicated: "The gender sub on this forum is mostly the work of incels and angry old men who have complicated misgivings about their mothers.

That's merely ad hominem, of course. Even were it the case that everybody present were "angry old men," that would not rationally imply they were wrong or right. That would remain to be shown.

But that seems a weird conclusion for a forum on gender. It's not exactly the favourite topic of "angry old men." It's more a Feminist theme...so why would the Feminists and trans-advocates not be here in droves? They love this stuff. In fact, "gender essentialism" is one of the current hot topics in Feminist Theory.

So maybe Flash isn't exactly justified in his assertion.

[Scott Mayers]

I still don't believe I really need one, and I have done zero research into whatever arguments support either theory (assuming you have presented either in fair terms). I think it's odd that I am being told I must choose

The answer to why you were being asked is very simple, Flash. If there is an essence of femaleness...ANY essence...then it is certainly, beyond any doubt, not true that there is NONE. But if there is NONE, then it is equally absolutely certain that there is not even ONE such basis of essential distinction.

So you could put it this way: is there anything women can contribute to the world that men simply cannot...or the reverse? If "yes," you're an essentialist. If "no," then you're not.

I am not telling you which you must believe at all. Choose either one. I'm just pointing out that it's evident that one or the other is right...and certain logical consequences follow, depending on which is right.

But read what I wrote above. The present feminism DOES defend both to some degree with certain rationality. They just pick and choose factors that 'fit' for their prefence to make laws to empower gender distinction but with the reason to make the playing field balanced. It is thus not necessarily contradictory to hold both views but by distinctly separating the issues categorically. It may be 'true' that women could be biased with statistical significance against jobs that are statistically favored for men. Thus these can be understood as unequal treatment of men and women as wholes. Thus, their belief about EMPOWERING women in law is about reassigning the whole class women as the defining factor that makes them statistically less advantaged in the present. They then also believe they NEED to be discriminating FOR any arbitrary woman in the class of all women and AGAINST any arbitrary male in the class of all men.[Distinct or Unique treatment].

This is a belief that the law and appropriate social behavior is to accept the sacrifices of those within the members of those classes that are presumed to be of the predatory class, men in this case. This is fine IF YOU AREN'T one of those males that are being counterdiscriminated against. We aren't numbers. And the further problem is that the reality of this behavior is to pass on the 'debt' of guilt upon those males as a 'scapegoat' rather than do the particular sacrificing they themselves hold of the whole.

[Scott Mayers]

As Flash indicated: "The gender sub on this forum is mostly the work of incels and angry old men who have complicated misgivings about their mothers.

That's merely ad hominem, of course. Even were it the case that everybody present were "angry old men," that would not rationally imply they were wrong or right. That would remain to be shown.

But that seems a weird conclusion for a forum on gender. It's not exactly the favourite topic of "angry old men." It's more a Feminist theme...so why would the Feminists and trans-advocates not be here in droves? They love this stuff. In fact, "gender essentialism" is one of the current hot topics in Feminist Theory.

So maybe Flash isn't exactly justified in his assertion.

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. The choice of feminists to NOT participate in forums like this are because most people here are NOT female ....and that those who may be feminists whether male or female, believe that giving platform to even participating in this only riles up those whom they believe HATE women in general, such as those "incels". 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.

[Immanuel Can]

The present feminism DOES defend both to some degree with certain rationality. They just pick and choose factors...

But that clearly won't do, logically. We can all see that.

If there is any "factor" to pick -- any that should count at all, as uniquely "female" -- then they cannot believe that there are NO such factors when it is convenient to plead "equality." And that's obvious.

Thus, their belief about EMPOWERING women in law is about reassigning the whole class women as the defining factor that makes them statistically less advantaged in the present.

Right. There's an excellent example.

If there's such a thing as a "woman lawyer," and such a thing as a "man lawyer," with one class being distinct from the other, then they are clearly not denying the existence of the relevant essential defining traits (whatever they choose to say that those traits are). To use the Feminist Theory term, they are being "Gender Essentialists."

If, on the other hand, because they're Equality Feminists, then there are no such traits. There are just entities-playing-the-socially-constructed-but-inauthentic role of "female". Then all we can say is perhaps that "some" lawyers are making less than others. But we can't really say why, and we can't say it's related to some fictitious, socially-constructed idea of "femaleness," because there's no such thing as a "woman lawyer." There are just "lawyers."

[FlashDangerpants]

As Flash indicated: "The gender sub on this forum is mostly the work of incels and angry old men who have complicated misgivings about their mothers.

That's merely ad hominem, of course. Even were it the case that everybody present were "angry old men," that would not rationally imply they were wrong or right. That would remain to be shown.

Not an ad hominem, you really must learn what that means some time.

But that seems a weird conclusion for a forum on gender. It's not exactly the favourite topic of "angry old men." It's more a Feminist theme...so why would the Feminists and trans-advocates not be here in droves? They love this stuff. In fact, "gender essentialism" is one of the current hot topics in Feminist Theory.

So maybe Flash isn't exactly justified in his assertion.

They aren't on this forum, so they aren't in the gender sub forum. You can look at what is on this sub forum though...
Should women focus more on jobs or children?
A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
Sex war warriors and the Suffrageur Society Pledge of Allegiance
And you will quickly see that what I wrote ... "There is pretty much nobody for you to discuss these 2nd and third wave feminist theories with here." was a basic statement of what is clearly the case, not an ad hominem argument.

[FlashDangerpants]

I still don't believe I really need one, and I have done zero research into whatever arguments support either theory (assuming you have presented either in fair terms). I think it's odd that I am being told I must choose

The answer to why you were being asked is very simple, Flash. If there is an essence of femaleness...ANY essence...then it is certainly, beyond any doubt, not true that there is NONE. But if there is NONE, then it is equally absolutely certain that there is not even ONE such basis of essential distinction.

So you could put it this way: is there anything women can contribute to the world that men simply cannot...or the reverse? If "yes," you're an essentialist. If "no," then you're not.

I am not telling you which you must believe at all. Choose either one. I'm just pointing out that it's evident that one or the other is right...and certain logical consequences follow, depending on which is right.

I gave you your on topic answer. Why did you ignore that and argue with the off topic stuff I don't care about?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

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?

[Immanuel Can]

I gave you your on topic answer.

Sort of. But you dodged the logic of the issue, and tried to say "both," which logically doesn't work at all.

So it wasn't really an answer. It was a kind of misunderstanding on your side...or maybe just a failure of logic...or perhaps evasion. I can't say. But there really is no getting away from the dichotomy of "Gender Essentialism" versus "no Gender Essentialism." Logically, everybody's got to pick a side.

[henry quirk]

seems clear to me...

men and women aren't interchangeable

men cannot be women, women cannot be men

so, yeah, there are women lawyers and there are men lawyers

it's not a good or bad thing: it's just what is... sez the