Gender Essentialism

[FlashDangerpants]

Not at all. If there are zero essential traits of women, then it is inevitable logically that "gender" is a false construct, because it has to refer to zero real things, then.

And again, that's really just basic logic.

That's just something you are assuming. Where is the argument to establish it?

Ummm...right above.

Why does every category of object have to have some unique "essence" that no other category can generate?

Because something is necessary in order for us to be able to distinguish an "object" from others. If there is no such feature, then everything is the same.

So, for example, if the axiom, "Women are not men" is true, it can only be because women are something essential that men quite simply are not. And if there is absolutely no such essential distinction, then women are just small men.

But all this is secondary, because it doesn't matter which definition -- Essentialist or Non-Essentialist -- one takes. Transgender ideology still won't make sense, in either case. And that's my point at the moment.

If the axiom chairs are not tables is true, that doesn't require chairs to have any unique and essential properties that no item other than a chair has. It merely requires the term to be useful, perhaps because a chair is an object with a sum of properties that makes it worth describing that object as a chair.

When you set this up, you required a unique and exclusive essential component. Your additional argument further requires some inconvertibility of that property. These are smuggled assumptions. You cannot possibly hope to apply this to all categories of all types, so you need to establish something whereby gender has a this unique special essence that other categories work perfectly well without having. Or you must argue that it is impossible to convert a table into a chair.

[Immanuel Can]

I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".

1. There is something unique and special to being female, something that cannot be generated by males...(What would it be? A kind of cognition? A kind of perception? A kind of intuition? A natural propensity? A domestic possibility? A set of values? A perspective?...etc. It varies among Feminist writers) -- this is a kind of 3rd Wave claim.

2. There is nothing unique to being female: any current differences that appear to exist between men and women are socially constructed, not essential. This is a kind of 2nd Wave, Billie Jean King kind of position.

One thing we can see for sure: these claims are absolutely exclusive of one another. If there is even one thing that corresponds to #1, then #2 is obviously not true. If #2 is true, then there is no way that even one item can be true under #1.

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

So we can all see it has to be #1 or #2. Which do you think it is, and why?

They are both true.

Impossible, since logically, the truth of #1 excludes the truth of #2, and the reverse.

Common sense gives you that, for sure. But if it doesn't, the Law of Non-Contradiction does. Either way, it's logically certain.

[Immanuel Can]

That's just something you are assuming. Where is the argument to establish it?

Ummm...right above.

Why does every category of object have to have some unique "essence" that no other category can generate?

Because something is necessary in order for us to be able to distinguish an "object" from others. If there is no such feature, then everything is the same.

So, for example, if the axiom, "Women are not men" is true, it can only be because women are something essential that men quite simply are not. And if there is absolutely no such essential distinction, then women are just small men.

But all this is secondary, because it doesn't matter which definition -- Essentialist or Non-Essentialist -- one takes. Transgender ideology still won't make sense, in either case. And that's my point at the moment.

Well, I suppose you may be fascinated by "Chair Essentialism" and "Table Essentialism," but it's of no real consequence here, being less, not more applicable to the issue of discussion. Here, we're only asking -- and not telling -- whether or not Gender Essentialism is true. You're perfectly free to answer either way. The only logical impossibility is obviously "both" -- not because I say so, or "smuggle assumptions" in.

There is no assumption necessary but that the Law of Non-Contradiction applies to cases of "existing." Indeed, it's a perfect case of such.

However, whichever answer is given, transgender ideology is made incoherent anyway.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ummm...right above.


Because something is necessary in order for us to be able to distinguish an "object" from others. If there is no such feature, then everything is the same.

So, for example, if the axiom, "Women are not men" is true, it can only be because women are something essential that men quite simply are not. And if there is absolutely no such essential distinction, then women are just small men.

But all this is secondary, because it doesn't matter which definition -- Essentialist or Non-Essentialist -- one takes. Transgender ideology still won't make sense, in either case. And that's my point at the moment.

Well, I suppose you may be fascinated by "Chair Essentialism" and "Table Essentialism," but it's of no real consequence here, being less, not more applicable to the issue of discussion. Here, we're only asking -- and not telling -- whether or not Gender Essentialism is true. You're perfectly free to answer either way. The only logical impossibility is obviously "both" -- not because I say so, or "smuggle assumptions" in.

There is no assumption necessary but that the Law of Non-Contradiction applies to cases of "existing." Indeed, it's a perfect case of such.

However, whichever answer is given, transgender ideology is made incoherent anyway.

I didn't say both. I have been explicitly clear that I see no reason to suppose there is any "essence" involved at all.
What I have disputed is the assumption that essence is required for there to be difference.
You have interpreted that as "both". I never did.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

[Sculptor]

I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".

1. There is something unique and special to being female, something that cannot be generated by males...(What would it be? A kind of cognition? A kind of perception? A kind of intuition? A natural propensity? A domestic possibility? A set of values? A perspective?...etc. It varies among Feminist writers) -- this is a kind of 3rd Wave claim.

2. There is nothing unique to being female: any current differences that appear to exist between men and women are socially constructed, not essential. This is a kind of 2nd Wave, Billie Jean King kind of position.

One thing we can see for sure: these claims are absolutely exclusive of one another. If there is even one thing that corresponds to #1, then #2 is obviously not true. If #2 is true, then there is no way that even one item can be true under #1.

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

So we can all see it has to be #1 or #2. Which do you think it is, and why?

They are both true.

Impossible, since logically, the truth of #1 excludes the truth of #2, and the reverse.

Only in your childish, moronic, black and white world. Point 2 is a valid one but you could not avoid turning it into a stupid strawman, because you want 1 to be true. Gender "theory talks" as you put it would never articulate 2 in the way you want them to.

Women have wombs, tend to be more gracile, but in most things that are important and essential to being a human women share the same basic set or characteristics to men

[Immanuel Can]

Only in your childish...

Ah. An ad hominem rant. When will people learn it's just irrelevant...and very, very boring.

You can't beat the Law of Non-Contradiction here, chum, despite all your ire.

[Sculptor]

Only in your childish...

Ah. An ad hominem rant. When will people learn it's just irrelevant...and very, very boring.

You can't beat the Law of Non-Contradiction here, chum, despite all your ire.

Hahah.
Run away! run away!!
1) You were insulted by the truth. This was not an ad hominem. (loo it up!)
2) My critique is still valid. Your point 2 is a strawman, not even the most rabid feminist would deny she had no womb.
3) You are a duche-bag. NB this is not an ad hominem either, though not literally true.
4) You are literally childish.

[Immanuel Can]

Hahah.
Run away! run away!!

Too petty.

Can't be bothered. Shall not bother hereafter.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

[Sculptor]

Hahah.
Run away! run away!!

Too petty.

Can't be bothered. Shall not bother hereafter.

Good. You are too easy. Just not bright enough.

[Immanuel Can]

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."

[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."

Are you actually doing an Aristotelian Substance and Essence routine here?

Whatever.
So there is an essence of Chair that is not available to objects of the class Table, and this essence is that which makes the object a chair not a table? What happens to the essence when I sit on a table and use it as a chair? What stops me from converting a table into a chair and that becoming an actual real chair with the Aristotelian Essence of chairness and all the sitting functions that come with that blend of form and substance?

[Immanuel Can]

So there is an essence of Chair...

I'll let anybody who has an interest in chairs take up the discussion with you.

[FlashDangerpants]

So there is an essence of Chair...

I'll let anybody who has an interest in chairs take up the discussion with you.

This is directly relevant to your argument. You have dodged repeatedly, while in one case accusing me of evasion. What is this factor in essences that is non-transferrable?