Gender Essentialism

[henry quirk]

"But can man, woman, or a trans be treated as a human being? We don't know since we don't know what a human being is. We define a human being by physical and societal qualities which have often little to do with what it means to be a human being."

We know how to treat other humans cuz we are humans (do unto others...).

As to the nature of that treatment: it depends on the circumstance.

Consider...

The schizophrenic, untreated and delusional, largely isn't responsible for what he does. The card-carrying commie, on the other hand, is. I try to help the first; I defend against second. Aid the sick; fight the slaver.

I'm simple-minded, I guess, cuz none of this seems complicated to me: Sick people get help; confused people are set straight; evil folks are fought.

The tricky part is tellin' the difference.

[FlashDangerpants]

If I have described categorisation as refencing anything objectively true,

That's a stable definition of "category." That means that a man cannot actually become a woman, if true.

I've asked you before not to quote me out of context like that.

[Immanuel Can]

If I have described categorisation as refencing anything objectively true,

That's a stable definition of "category." That means that a man cannot actually become a woman, if true.

I've asked you before not to quote me out of context like that.

Heh. It's not "out of context." It's using exactly your own words. It's a quote; look above.

Anyway, if you suppose people are incapable of tracking back one message to find out anything they want about your "context," you can most certainly point them to it, and help the poor chaps out.

[FlashDangerpants]

As you can see, it no longer really belongs to the fork category, it is not a functional implement for eating food.

Functionalist definition. It's still essentially the original fork. Now it's a mangled one, that is being used as a piece of jewelry. But its essential composition is unchanged.

Are you using a new meaning for essential here or the one you posted before? I mean the fork is now an item of jewellery, that much is not really debatable is it? If so, then the "essences" stuff has no actual effect. It doesn't mean that the concept of jewellery has no meaning any more. Once we're done with that question, we are done with your argument and this thread can come to its natural conclusion.

You never answered my question, "What is the Functionalist definition of a 'woman'?" If Functionalism was enough, then you should be able to.

I don't need one for anything that I have argued here. And as I expressly written that I consider that an impossible task I cannot rationally be changelled that I must profer such a thing.

You might argue that a small human can become a big human, but you couldn't argue that a human could become a cat, a tree or a rock. Now, the question here is whether gender is two stable categories, or merely two superficial overlays on the deep fact of sameness. And you keep vacillating on that question. You want to say BOTH that categories can tell us something objectively true, AND that they cannot.

If I have described categorisation as refencing anything objectively true, that would be a very careless use of the concept of objectivity on my part

That's a stable definition of "category." That means that a man cannot actually become a woman, if true.

That's an entirely irrelevant response once the context you deleted is returned.

Also, I haven't actually described it that way.

I would normally restrict myself to saying that we use categorisation because it is useful to us,

What makes a category "useful," though? You've said, above: it's that it refers to "objective truth." If it does not, then it is no longer "useful," because it fails to represent adequately the real way things are in the world.

A category is useful if it is used andnot useful if it is not. Zoologists create new categories to describe previously unkown differences within the animal kingdom on a regular basis, forgotten categorical distinctions that serve no purpose fall out of use.

You want to say "man" is a thing a transsexual can be, in the first place, and also something he can want to leave, in the second, and that "woman" also is a stable category that he can seek out and desire genuinely to be, but also that since gender is transient and negotiable, these same categories refer to nothing.

I absolutely haven't said that these categories refer to nothing, from the first statement I made on that topic through till now I have clearly recognised that they refer to what I described as " a mix of biological and social differences",

"Differences"? According to you, are these "differences" that matter and are real, or merely "differences" of appearance? Because whichever you say, transgenderism's goose is logically cooked. You won't be able to render it coherent on either assumption.

What is coherence and incoherence in this matter? If gender is a combination of many factors then that's all there is to the matter. If it looks like a mess to you then why can't you prescribe the exact set of criteria that constitute gender any better than anyone else? You can't even sort out what the essence of a chair is without having a meltdown.

[FlashDangerpants]

I've asked you before not to quote me out of context like that.

Heh. It's not "out of context." It's using exactly your own words. It's a quote; look above.

That's exactly what quoting out of context requires.

[Immanuel Can]

As you can see, it no longer really belongs to the fork category, it is not a functional implement for eating food.

Functionalist definition. It's still essentially the original fork. Now it's a mangled one, that is being used as a piece of jewelry. But its essential composition is unchanged.

That's its function...not its identity.

I mean the fork is now an item of jewellery, that much is not really debatable is it?

Sure it is.

One person could look at and say, "Look...cute jewelry." Another could look at it and say, "Who wrecked the fork?" And both would be right. Because the first is only talking functionally, and the second is speaking of another function. But he who says, "Why is this twisted piece of metal here" is right by identity.

If so, then the "essences" stuff has no actual effect.

Sure it does. Either way, the thing is a twisted piece of metal that was originally designed to be a fork, but is now a ruined fork.

Once we're done with that question, we are done with your argument and this thread can come to its natural conclusion.

For you, maybe. I can see you've not dealt with the fundamental questions at all. You still have no logical account of transgender ideology...just a self-contradictory one. But that's what we had at the start, anyway. Transgenderism is self-contradicting.

You never answered my question, "What is the Functionalist definition of a 'woman'?" If Functionalism was enough, then you should be able to.

I don't need one for anything that I have argued here.

Sure you need one. You gave "jewelry" a Functionalist definition -- if Functionalism is the same as identity, then you should be able to identify "woman" by function. But you can't, or won't...because you sense the folly of using exactly the same strategy for women as you used for forks.

In other words, the falsehood of your analogy and the dangers of taking it to refer to women are apparent even to you, though you'll not admit that, I'm sure.

I would normally restrict myself to saying that we use categorisation because it is useful to us,

What makes a category "useful," though? You've said, above: it's that it refers to "objective truth." If it does not, then it is no longer "useful," because it fails to represent adequately the real way things are in the world.

A category is useful if it is used

Redundant and circular. That's not a definition of "useful." Useful is what is used? Heh. That's pretty obvious.

But here's the question: does the category "woman" pick out any "objective truth"? Is there anything about a "woman" that is distinctive, essential, unique, irreplaceable, and a mangled man?

You never answered that one either.

I absolutely haven't said that these categories refer to nothing, from the first statement I made on that topic through till now I have clearly recognised that they refer to what I described as " a mix of biological and social differences",

"Differences"? According to you, are these "differences" that matter and are real, or merely "differences" of appearance? Because whichever you say, transgenderism's goose is logically cooked. You won't be able to render it coherent on either assumption.

What is coherence and incoherence in this matter?

An incoherent argument is one that doesn't even have a chance of making sense.

If gender is a combination of many factors then that's all there is to the matter.

No, it's not. If that "combination of factors" is actually unique, genuinely "different," and picks out some quality of an entity that can't be had by the category "aspiring-but-weaker man," then "woman" is a fixed category, not a malleable one. But if it's malleable, then there are no such things as "women" as uniquely different and valuable entities, but only neutral humans.

Which way is it? You'll have to say.

However, it seems nobody can make transgenderism coherent. Neither on the basis of Essentialism nor on Non-Essentialism have you been able to render any account of it that does not self-contradict. Nor has anyone else.

That's what incoherent ideologies do: they fail to keep faith even with their own fundamental assumptions, undermine their own logic, and thus constitute a refutation of their own position. That's why they have zero chance of being right...they falsify themselves.

[Immanuel Can]

x

[Immanuel Can]

I've asked you before not to quote me out of context like that.

Heh. It's not "out of context." It's using exactly your own words. It's a quote; look above.

That's exactly what quoting out of context requires.

See the little blue arrow at the top, beside "FlashDangerpants wrote"? Anybody who clicks on that is automatically returned to the message to which it refers, and finds the context in full.

Glad to help. You're welcome.

[FlashDangerpants]

As you can see, it no longer really belongs to the fork category, it is not a functional implement for eating food.

Functionalist definition. It's still essentially the original fork. Now it's a mangled one, that is being used as a piece of jewelry. But its essential composition is unchanged.

That's its function...not its identity.

I mean the fork is now an item of jewellery, that much is not really debatable is it?

Sure it is.

One person could look at and say, "Look...cute jewelry." Another could look at it and say, "Who wrecked the fork?" And both would be right. Because the first is only talking functionally, and the second is speaking of another function. But he who says, "Why is this twisted piece of metal here" is right-by identity.

If so, then the "essences" stuff has no actual effect.

Sure it does. Either way, the thing is a twisted piece of metal that was originally designed to be a fork, but is now a ruined fork.

The fork has nonetheless become a member of a non fork category. That is how categorisation works. If it doesn't fit with your dogma, that's your problem to resolve.

The mere fact that One person could look at and say, "Look...cute jewelry." Another could look at it and say, "Who wrecked the fork?" And both would be right. Proves my point that this talk of essentialism has no bearing on the world as it is. Otherwise only one of them would be right.

You never answered my question, "What is the Functionalist definition of a 'woman'?" If Functionalism was enough, then you should be able to.

I don't need one for anything that I have argued here.

Sure you need one. You gave "jewelry" a Functionalist definition -- if Functionalism is the same as identity, then you should be able to identify "woman" by function. But you can't, or won't...because you sense the folly of using exactly the same strategy for women as you used for forks.

When forks have the ability to assert their own definition based on thier self identity that will be an entirely valid counter. Let me know when that happens.

In other words, the falsehood of your analogy and the dangers of taking it to refer to women are apparent even to you, though you'll not admit that, I'm sure.

What makes a category "useful," though? You've said, above: it's that it refers to "objective truth." If it does not, then it is no longer "useful," because it fails to represent adequately the real way things are in the world.

A category is useful if it is used

Redundant and circular. That's not a definition of "useful." Useful is what is used? Heh. That's pretty obvious.

But it's correct. Usefulness, noun, the quality of having utility and especially practical worth or applicability. (Merrian-Webster).
Unused categories are unused because nobody finds use for them. Used categories are used because people do find use for them.
So, that is what makes a category useful, which was your question.

But here's the question: does the category "woman" pick out any "objective truth"? Is there anything about a "woman" that is distinctive, essential, unique, irreplaceable, and a mangled man?

You never answered that one either.

You haven't been paying a lot of attention here have you. I am bored of writing the same shit just for you to chop it up and pretend it wasn't there and then demand the same shit again as if I am not answering you. If there was a discoverable objective truth then there would be zero debate. I've explicitly stated that I see no quality or specific set of qualities that constitutes an essence of womanhood.

"Differences"? According to you, are these "differences" that matter and are real, or merely "differences" of appearance? Because whichever you say, transgenderism's goose is logically cooked. You won't be able to render it coherent on either assumption.

What is coherence and incoherence in this matter?

An incoherent argument is one that doesn't even have a chance of making sense.

In that case it's not my problem. I AM NOT HERE AS A SPOKESMAN ON BEHALF OF THE TRANSGENDER COMMUNITY. They have their own people who hopefully know more about getting your naught bits chopped off than I do. I AM ONLY ARGUING AGAINST YOUR SPECIFIC ARGUMENT. My purpose is entirely desctructive. It is no defnece against that to demand that I provide some sort of rebuild for you.

If gender is a combination of many factors then that's all there is to the matter.

No, it's not. If that "combination of factors" is actually unique, genuinely "different," and picks out some quality of an entity that can't be had by the category "aspiring-but-weaker man," then "woman" is a fixed category, not a malleable one. But if it's malleable, then there are no such things as "women" as uniquely different and valuable entities, but only neutral humans.

Which way is it? You'll have to say.

You are being weird. WTF is "some quality of an entity that can't be had by the category" supposed to mean?
Every human is automatically a unique entity, that has no bearing on whether they are also a member of a set containing other unique entities.

However, it seems nobody can make transgenderism coherent. Neither on the basis of Essentialism nor on Non-Essentialism have you been able to render any account of it that does not self-contradict. Nor has anyone else.

That's what incoherent ideologies do: they fail to keep faith even with their own fundamental assumptions, undermine their own logic, and thus constitute a refutation of their own position. That's why they have zero chance of being right...they falsify themselves.

That is self descriptive. The second you committed yourself to retaining the assumptions of essentialism even in the case that essentialism is denied you sort of did that to yourself. It was lazy and stupid and you only did it to be mean to innocent people.

[Immanuel Can]

The fork has nonetheless become a member of a non fork category.
Functionalism. By identity, it's still in the category "twisted piece of metal, originally a fork."

The mere fact that One person could look at and say, "Look...cute jewelry." Another could look at it and say, "Who wrecked the fork?" And both would be right. Proves my point that this talk of essentialism has no bearing on the world as it is. Otherwise only one of them would be right.

Only one IS right. Identity is what we're talking about, not merely "Function."

Look at it this way: if you pick up a knife, and use it as a screwdriver, then functionally, you've "made it into a screwdriver." But identity-wise, you have not. It's still a knife.

Now, where's your Functionalist definition for "woman"?

I don't need one for anything that I have argued here.

Sure you need one. You gave "jewelry" a Functionalist definition -- if Functionalism is the same as identity, then you should be able to identify "woman" by function. But you can't, or won't...because you sense the folly of using exactly the same strategy for women as you used for forks.

When forks have the ability to assert their own definition based on thier self identity that will be an entirely valid counter. Let me know when that happens.

Ah. So you are now calling your own analogy false. I agree. A woman is not comparable to a fork, and you've identified a second reason why it's not. One is a "woman" is not Functionally defined; a second is that a "woman" is a conscious entity. Congratulations. You've just killed your own analogy.

Which is why I wrote:

In other words, the falsehood of your analogy and the dangers of taking it to refer to women are apparent even to you, though you'll not admit that, I'm sure.

A category is useful if it is used

Redundant and circular. That's not a definition of "useful." Useful is what is used? Heh. That's pretty obvious.

But it's correct.

Nope. It's redundant and circular. It's like saying, "Every woman is a woman." It has no new content in the predicate that's not already in the noun.

But here's the question: does the category "woman" pick out any "objective truth"? Is there anything about a "woman" that is distinctive, essential, unique, irreplaceable, and a mangled man?

You never answered that one either.

If there was a discoverable objective truth then there would be zero debate. I've explicitly stated that I see no quality or specific set of qualities that constitutes an essence of womanhood.

Then there's no way a trans-person needs to become one. There's nothing for him to become, that he is not already.

QED.

What is coherence and incoherence in this matter?

An incoherent argument is one that doesn't even have a chance of making sense.

In that case it's not my problem. I AM NOT HERE AS A SPOKESMAN ON BEHALF OF THE TRANSGENDER COMMUNITY.

Then you have nothing to say on this matter at all. Because my question concerns them.

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

Every human is automatically a unique entity,

Irrelevant to the present question, but also decisively bad for your case if it's true.

The question is about the categories "man" and "woman." If every person is simply unique in that way, then there are no genders...but nothing for a trans-person to need to be, and nothing for him to stop being. He is what he is...unique. And he can stay that. In any case, he has no choice: for there is no category "woman" into which he can aspire to go.

[henry quirk]

You meet a nice girl, get along well with her, bed her, and then, after the fact, she tells you she is or was a man. What do you do?

If you believe gender is fluid, mutable, interchangeable, just a social construct: you do nuthin'.

If you believe gender is fixed, immutable, not subject to change, sumthin' intrinsic to the person: you do sumthin'.

C'mon, folks, I see you eyein' the question: step up, take a position.

[FlashDangerpants]

The fork has nonetheless become a member of a non fork category.
Functionalism. By identity, it's still in the category "twisted piece of metal, originally a fork."

The mere fact that One person could look at and say, "Look...cute jewelry." Another could look at it and say, "Who wrecked the fork?" And both would be right. Proves my point that this talk of essentialism has no bearing on the world as it is. Otherwise only one of them would be right.

Only one IS right. Identity is what we're talking about, not merely "Function."

Look at it this way: if you pick up a knife, and use it as a screwdriver, then functionally, you've "made it into a screwdriver." But identity-wise, you have not. It's still a knife.

Functionally you have used a knife to twist a screw. You have not asserted or named the object a screwdriver, nor rendered it unusable for spreading butter on your toast. This isn't terribly problematic for me though, categories are quite often relatviely arbitrary, as I am not bound up in all the spooky name=essence bullshit I can quiet easily allow for instances where an object doesn't fall neatly into one.

Now, where's your Functionalist definition for "woman"?

I have been consistent from the start that I don't need one. Here's a reminder for you...

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 I have never offered you any reason whatsoever to suppose I can be goaded into doing what I obviously consider to be an impossible task. When will you learn this?

Sure you need one. You gave "jewelry" a Functionalist definition -- if Functionalism is the same as identity, then you should be able to identify "woman" by function. But you can't, or won't...because you sense the folly of using exactly the same strategy for women as you used for forks.

When forks have the ability to assert their own definition based on thier self identity that will be an entirely valid counter. Let me know when that happens.

Ah. So you are now calling your own analogy false. I agree. A woman is not comparable to a fork, and you've identified a second reason why it's not. One is a "woman" is not Functionally defined; a second is that a "woman" is a conscious entity. Congratulations. You've just killed your own analogy.

Which is why I wrote:

In other words, the falsehood of your analogy and the dangers of taking it to refer to women are apparent even to you, though you'll not admit that, I'm sure.

What analogy? I wasn't making any particular analogy between sex changes and converting forks into non fork things. I was only demonstrating that objects can move from one category into another. I can assure you, if I was doing the other thing I would obviously have used a spork as my illustration because I am just so much more fun than you could ever be.

Redundant and circular. That's not a definition of "useful." Useful is what is used? Heh. That's pretty obvious.

But it's correct.

Nope. It's redundant and circular. It's like saying, "Every woman is a woman." It has no new content in the predicate that's not already in the noun.

Usefulness, noun, the quality or state of being useful. Cambridge Dictionary
Useful, adj,
1. being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect:
a useful member of society.
2. of practical use, as for doing work; producing material results; supplying common needs:
the useful arts; useful work.
Dictionary.com
Usefulness is a very basic concept, it's hard to come up with something even more basic to use to describe it. you have some competing definition?

If you want to see a circularity problem in action, try arguing that all categories are defined by essence because otherwise there would be no essence to define categories with .... whoops.

But here's the question: does the category "woman" pick out any "objective truth"? Is there anything about a "woman" that is distinctive, essential, unique, irreplaceable, and a mangled man?

You never answered that one either.

If there was a discoverable objective truth then there would be zero debate. I've explicitly stated that I see no quality or specific set of qualities that constitutes an essence of womanhood.

Then there's no way a trans-person needs to become one. There's nothing for him to become, that he is not already.

Then there would also be no need for you to get so het up over it or accuse anyone of being insane. But your argument there is dependent on assuming the basics of essentialism, which is illegitimate. Otherwise there are existing categories and their meaning is derived from how those categories are used, in which case your point is pure nonsense.

An incoherent argument is one that doesn't even have a chance of making sense.

In that case it's not my problem. I AM NOT HERE AS A SPOKESMAN ON BEHALF OF THE TRANSGENDER COMMUNITY.

Then you have nothing to say on this matter at all. Because my question concerns them.

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

I did, but you ignore everything you don't want to understand. Why you can't just ignore trannies and let them get on with their lives I really don't know.

Every human is automatically a unique entity,

Irrelevant to the present question, but also decisively bad for your case if it's true.

Are you willing to sacrifice the law of identity now?

The question is about the categories "man" and "woman." If every person is simply unique in that way, then there are no genders...but nothing for a trans-person to need to be, and nothing for him to stop being. He is what he is...unique. And he can stay that. In any case, he has no choice: for there is no category "woman" into which he can aspire to go.

That's just untrue though. The categories are useful and used, no essence is required for this. Everybody is a unique example of personhood, this does not entail that no such as thing as personhood can be considered. You have argued yourself so far into absurdity there is no possible rescue.

[Immanuel Can]

So I have never offered you any reason whatsoever to suppose I can be goaded into doing what I obviously consider to be an impossible task.

Then you would also have to know that it is impossible that a "man" would ever need to "become" a "woman." Neither the categories involved, nor the idea of moving from one to the other, makes any sense, then.

When forks have the ability to assert their own definition based on thier self identity that will be an entirely valid counter. Let me know when that happens.

Ah. So you are now calling your own analogy false. I agree. A woman is not comparable to a fork, and you've identified a second reason why it's not. One is a "woman" is not Functionally defined; a second is that a "woman" is a conscious entity. Congratulations. You've just killed your own analogy.

Which is why I wrote:

In other words, the falsehood of your analogy and the dangers of taking it to refer to women are apparent even to you, though you'll not admit that, I'm sure.

What analogy?

The "fork" analogy. You were trying to say that what was true of the category "fork" was also true of the categories of gender.

If you were not, then you were simply "talking with a forked tongue."

Usefulness is a very basic concept, it's hard to come up with something even more basic to use to describe it. you have some competing definition?

Sure. There are lots of synonyms, like practical, serviceable, handy, advantageous, strategic, employable...and so on. You could use many predicates without repeating your noun.

If there was a discoverable objective truth then there would be zero debate. I've explicitly stated that I see no quality or specific set of qualities that constitutes an essence of womanhood.

Then there's no way a trans-person needs to become one. There's nothing for him to become, that he is not already.

Then there would also be no need for you to get so het up over[/quote]
Oh, sure there would be. It would mean that trans-people, instead of making a request for something reasonable, were actually claiming something impossible. It would mean that their claims were delusional, since the categories to which they appeal simply do not exist in any objective or real way, according to you. It would imply they were dysmorphic, and that the right way to be compassionate was to provide therapy. And to cultivate or "normalize" their delusions would be an act of betrayal and cruelty toward the mentally afflicted.

I'd say those were significant implications.

But your argument there is dependent on assuming the basics of essentialism,

Nope.

Instead, I've showed why it doesn't even matter whether you're a Gender Essentialist or a denier of it...there are no circumstances, in either case, in which trans-claims can be made cogent.

In that case it's not my problem. I AM NOT HERE AS A SPOKESMAN ON BEHALF OF THE TRANSGENDER COMMUNITY.

Then you have nothing to say on this matter at all. Because my question concerns them.

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

I did, but you ignore everything you don't want to understand.

Then why are you still talking?

Are you willing to sacrifice the law of identity now?

Actually, if the Law of Identity is true, your position is false.

The question is about the categories "man" and "woman." If every person is simply unique in that way, then there are no genders...but nothing for a trans-person to need to be, and nothing for him to stop being. He is what he is...unique. And he can stay that. In any case, he has no choice: for there is no category "woman" into which he can aspire to go.

That's just untrue though.

Oh? So now you're an Essentialist? The categories are now real and stable, and refer to specific, real-world things that people can want to be, and to specific, real-world things they can want to stop being?

You're off one horse and onto the other so fast it's a wonder you're not in the mud already.

[Nick_A]

When a caterpillar becomes a moth, has its essence changed?

Nick,

(NB: Before I start...IC uses the term "ESSENCE", I prefer to use the ontological synonym "SUBSTANCE")

OK...Suppose when your mother was pregnant with you, she had her obstetrician produce an image of you in the womb as a 4 week -old- embryo. Your mum is fascinated with this image from the MRI machine and has it converted to a nice photograph of little "embryonic Nick". Then she framed it and hung it in the living room of your home. Three months later she did the same thing and had a high-tech MRI image of you as a 4-month-old foetus produced - turned it into a framed photograph and hung it up on the wall next to the first photo of you as an embryo.

Then when you are a 3- year- old toddler, she has an nice portrait photo of you taken and hangs it up on the wall at home. Same again when you are a ten-year old boy, then a 17 year old teenager, then a young man of 28 at Church on your wedding day (with your new French bride, the beautiful Simone Weil - Ooh La La !! )- and another when you are 37-years - old and so on.

Your mum has hung all of these framed photographs side - by - side in chronological order.

When you are looking at these photographs one day in your parent's house, it suddenly dawns on you that are looking at the same "thing", i.e; YOU, the human being, a SUBSTANCE who is called Nick and can only ever be Nick.

Do you geddit ? Each photograph is a photo of a SUBSTANCE (or ESSENCE) that is the individual "thing" that is YOU. Each photo is a photograph of NICK.

Regards


Dachshund..................................(Beware the dog)

(NB: Before I start...IC uses the term "ESSENCE", I prefer to use the ontological synonym "SUBSTANCE")

Since you used the term ontological do you accept the premise of the Great Chain of Being?

http://faculty.grandview.edu/ssnyder/12 ... 0chain.htm

If you do it will make it much easier for me to describe what I believe to be the difference between a normal adaptive cycle of life you described which seems the dominant focus of this thread and the conscious change or evolution of "being" Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 15 in which a lower quality of being (natural body) evolves to a higher quality of being (spiritual body). From this perspective the essence or substance of Man has the potential for change

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.

[FlashDangerpants]

So I have never offered you any reason whatsoever to suppose I can be goaded into doing what I obviously consider to be an impossible task.

Then you would also have to know that it is impossible that a "man" would ever need to "become" a "woman." Neither the categories involved, nor the idea of moving from one to the other, makes any sense, then.

No, for the reasons I have given you enough times now. You aren't being an honest counterpart in this discussion.

Ah. So you are now calling your own analogy false. I agree. A woman is not comparable to a fork, and you've identified a second reason why it's not. One is a "woman" is not Functionally defined; a second is that a "woman" is a conscious entity. Congratulations. You've just killed your own analogy.

Which is why I wrote:

What analogy?

The "fork" analogy. You were trying to say that what was true of the category "fork" was also true of the categories of gender.

If you were not, then you were simply "talking with a forked tongue."

Already answered but you chopped it out of the quote. So here it is again.

I wasn't making any particular analogy between sex changes and converting forks into non fork things. I was only demonstrating that objects can move from one category into another. I can assure you, if I was doing the other thing I would obviously have used a spork as my illustration because I am just so much more fun than you could ever be.

If you are going to insist on selectively removing my words please don't proceed as if they were never there in the first place. It's not honest. All you are doing is constantly making me have to repeat myself over and over again. It's disrespectful.

Usefulness is a very basic concept, it's hard to come up with something even more basic to use to describe it. you have some competing definition?

Sure. There are lots of synonyms, like practical, serviceable, handy, advantageous, strategic, employable...and so on. You could use many predicates without repeating your noun.

Synonyms have no bearing on circularity, you are proposing a cosmetic solution and aiming at a misdiagnosed logical problem.

If you want to see a circularity problem in action, try arguing that all categories are defined by essence because otherwise there would be no essence to define categories with .... whoops.

Then there's no way a trans-person needs to become one. There's nothing for him to become, that he is not already.

Then there would also be no need for you to get so het up over

Oh, sure there would be. It would mean that trans-people, instead of making a request for something reasonable, were actually claiming something impossible. It would mean that their claims were delusional, since the categories to which they appeal simply do not exist in any objective or real way, according to you. It would imply they were dysmorphic, and that the right way to be compassionate was to provide therapy. And to cultivate or "normalize" their delusions would be an act of betrayal and cruelty toward the mentally afflicted.

But your argument there is dependent on assuming the basics of essentialism,

Nope.

Instead, I've showed why it doesn't even matter whether you're a Gender Essentialist or a denier of it...there are no circumstances, in either case, in which trans-claims can be made cogent.

You have congratulated yourself for doing that, but like Veritas who does the same often, you are ignoring the logical fallacies on which your argument rests. IF essentialism is nonsense, that does not mean categories all cease to make sense, it just means there is no essence. Your argument in that case is circular because it does depend on lack of essence causing lack of meaning. Essence is nonsense, meaning is unaffected by non-essentialism.

Are you willing to sacrifice the law of identity now?

Actually, if the Law of Identity is true, your position is false.

Why so?

That's just untrue though.

Oh? So now you're an Essentialist? The categories are now real and stable, and refer to specific, real-world things that people can want to be, and to specific, real-world things they can want to stop being?

You're off one horse and onto the other so fast it's a wonder you're not in the mud already.

Again, you selectively deleted what I wrote and then assumed I had written something else entirely, which is your go to move when you panic.

What I wrote is...
That's just untrue though. The categories are useful and used, no essence is required for this. Everybody is a unique example of personhood, this does not entail that no such as thing as personhood can be considered. You have argued yourself so far into absurdity there is no possible rescue.