Gender Essentialism

[henry quirk]

"The point I am making is that we underestimate our own ignorance."

And mine is that none of us are as ignorant as we think, or pretend, we are.

The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know. – Aristotle

I think Aristotle sides with me. All you have to do is listen to these know it alls who inhabit institutions of child abuse called schools. They know facts but lack understanding sufficient to appreciate their ignorance.

When folks ignore or reject what they know they're criminal, not ignorant. Those jackasses in school are an example of that.

[henry quirk]

"Well some of them are biological you see."

No. When it comes to gender it's all intrinsic, firm, biological (or deeper). All of it.

#

"But others are social."

Just shifting and shifty opinion. Everyone sayin' fire freezes don't make it so.

#

"It's really as much a matter of convention as anything else."

No. It's a matter of recognizing what is.

#

"it used to be the case that a difference between women and men was that women were ineligible to vote, but these things change."

That's just that shifting and shifty 'convention' at play. It ain't got nuthin' to do with the foundational *question: are men and women interchangeable?









*any in-thread iteration you care to point to (and ignore)

[Nick_A]

Henry, it is impossible to answer your question because people are different. One man would behorrified that he slept with a man while others are content to sleep with sheep. There is no conclusive answer when dealing with socially created personality constructs.

[henry quirk]

"Henry, it is impossible to answer your question because people are different. One man would behorrified that he slept with a man while others are content to sleep with sheep. There is no conclusive answer when dealing with socially created personality constructs."

The question is simple, each person will answer it (as he dares) based on his own understanding.

Watch...

Henry, if you bedded a woman and then discovered she was actually a he, what would you do?

Kick his ass up one side of the room and down the other.

Watch...

Joe, if you bedded a woman and then discovered she was actually a he, what would you do?

Nuthin'. Her gender is hers to decide and if she sez she's a woman that good enough for me.

See? Easy-easy if you know what you believe.

[Immanuel Can]

... there is a difference. There is clearly a mix of biological and social differences..."

Great. There are differences, you say.

Now, what, in specific are these "differences" of yours?

Well some of them are biological you see.

Let's have some.

But others are social.

And some of those, too.

It's really as much a matter of convention as anything else.

Well, that would really be a "difference" at all, though, will it? Because a "convention" isn't a real difference, but merely a socially-conventional one. In other words, the Constructionists' point would be that all such things are artificially-claimed distinctions, which have no basis in extra-social reality -- that's what "constructed" means. It means somebody "made it up," or "constructed" it.

I'm not sure what proportion "as much a matter of" adds to that. You mean it's partly conventional, but partly real? Just give me the real elements, so I'll know what you're talking about, okay? The conventional ones will obviously be merely conventional.

Are you planning to resurrect your gender doesn't exist if there's no essence routine or are you just hoping to force me to take your own view on something now?

No. I'm just still trying to figure out what actually "differences" you feel prepared to stand behind in regards to man and woman. So far, you've mentioned them as broad classes (i.e. "biological," and "social") but been entirely vague about what said "differences" actually are, in your view.

At this point, I'm just trying to see what's in your perspective. I'm not clear on it yet, and I'm wanting to make sure I know what you think.

[FlashDangerpants]

Are you planning to resurrect your gender doesn't exist if there's no essence routine or are you just hoping to force me to take your own view on something now?

No. I'm just still trying to figure out what actually "differences" you feel prepared to stand behind in regards to man and woman. So far, you've mentioned them as broad classes (i.e. "biological," and "social") but been entirely vague about what said "differences" actually are, in your view.

At this point, I'm just trying to see what's in your perspective. I'm not clear on it yet, and I'm wanting to make sure I know what you think.

You're playing for time. At the heart of your argument is a claim you cannot justify; that if essentialism is incorrect this by itself entails a complete lack of use for the concepts of gender. That claim depends on essences being required for categories to have any purpose, use or meaning. That is circular. This is the pressing logical problem to address.

[Immanuel Can]

'nuff said.

Marvel. I recognize the reference.

[Immanuel Can]

You're playing for time.

I don't need any. Time, I have.

What I need from you are specifics, if I'm going to have any hope of treating your view fairly. Now, you want that, don't you? You want me to understand what you mean, and not to mistake you in any way, don't you?

So, then, you can aid that. In fact, you can guarantee that. Just be very specific: which "biological" and "social" differences do you believe exist between the gender "man" and that of "woman"?

[FlashDangerpants]

What I need from you are specifics, if I'm going to have any hope of treating your view fairly.

My view is that circular arguments don't work very well. The specifics are below...

At the heart of your argument is a claim you cannot justify; that if essentialism is incorrect this by itself entails a complete lack of use for the concepts of gender. That claim depends on essences being required for categories to have any purpose, use or meaning. That is circular. This is the pressing logical problem to address.

[Immanuel Can]

What I need from you are specifics, if I'm going to have any hope of treating your view fairly.

My view is that circular arguments don't work very well.

Afraid to answer? Ashamed of your own "differences'? Who can say?

But since I have, as yet, made no argument from your views, and since you haven't even provided enough specific information for me to know which argument is relevant to your case, there's no circularity...because the argument hasn't been made yet.

So, if you think your own views have merit, or if you have any courage left, give me your specifics. What are these "differences" of yours? There's no reason to be ashamed of what you genuinely believe to be true. But there would be a complete defeat in not even being able to say what they were.

[FlashDangerpants]

But since I have, as yet, made no argument from your views, and since you haven't even provided enough specific information for me to know which argument is relevant to your case, there's no circularity...because the argument hasn't been made yet.

At the heart of your argument is a claim you cannot justify; that if essentialism is incorrect this by itself entails a complete lack of use for the concepts of gender. That claim depends on essences being required for categories to have any purpose, use or meaning. That is circular. This is the pressing logical problem to address.

[FlashDangerpants]

And one more time for luck


At the heart of your argument is a claim you cannot justify; that if essentialism is incorrect this by itself entails a complete lack of use for the concepts of gender. That claim depends on essences being required for categories to have any purpose, use or meaning. That is circular. This is the pressing logical problem to address.

[Immanuel Can]

But since I have, as yet, made no argument from your views, and since you haven't even provided enough specific information for me to know which argument is relevant to your case, there's no circularity...because the argument hasn't been made yet.

At the heart of your argument is a claim...

No claims yet. I just want to know what your own position is.

What "differences" did you mean in the physical and social realms? Be specific, please.

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay, now. I've left it long enough for people to weigh in if they want to.

There are a lot of points that need to be made here. The first, and most important, is to realize that the Equality Feminist explanation and the Uniqueness Feminist explanation are rationally totally mutually-excluding, totally mutually contradictory.

This can be seen because if there is ANY feature that is essential in women that is not also present in men, then it is not true that there is NO such feature. There is no alternate view rationally possible. One or the other is true; not both, and not neither.

So far, so good?

Now, this obviously has massive implications for Feminism itself, and for sex-roles in society. But I don't want to bark up that tree right now, and will let others do it if they wish.

My real question is about transsexualism, not Feminism.

It seems to me that this realization makes clear that transsexualism cannot be made rational.

Let's start out by identifying the two polarities of transsexualism. There is the base gender (BG) and the target gender (TG). The transsexual has been born or raised in the BG, but claims he/she needs to become the TG.

But if the "equality of genders" hypothesis is true, then this is wrong. There IS no TG. And there IS no BG. All there is, is two "false" genders, which hide the deep fact that men and women are not essentially different, all apparent differences have been socially constructed, resulting in oppression and false thinking. So what we all ought to be is unisex, undifferentiated by gender, or commonly just "human."

In that case, the best advice to an allegedly transgender person is to forget gender altogether, and become unisex. There would be no merit in encouraging him/her to leave his/her BG, which is an illusion anyway, and make the effort to take on the TG, which is also another illusion. Mental health would lie in the direction of everyone being unisex.

That's argument 1, consistent with Equality Feminism.

On the other hand, let us suppose that gender essentialism is correct.

If this is so, the transgender person CANNOT move from the BG to the TG, because some set of completely unobtainable features, from the BG starting point, will inhere in the TG. The BG will have essential qualities. So will the TG. And someone with the essential qualities of the BG will simply find it impossible to reach the TG.

In that case, mental health lies in the direction of encouraging the allegedly transgendering person to recognize that he/she is mentally ill or deluded in some way. Only when he/she gives up the aspiration to have the essence of what he/she simply can never have will he/she be able to be healthy.

That's argument 2, consistent with Uniqueness Feminism, and with Gender Essentialism, which seems to be the view that the majority here thinks is also right.

Conclusion
So either way -- whether we believe in Gender Essentialism or refuse to believe in it, the rationally compassionate decision regarding transpeople is to help them to see that it's not rational or healthy for them to continue to attempt to become the TG -- for Equality Feminism says it's a false goal, and Uniqueness Feminism says it's impossible.

This argument has been examined and it failed. The assertion that if there is no essence then there must be no gender categories itself rests on an assumption that such categories can only be valid if essentialism is true. This circularity renders the entire argument worthless.

There is no requirement on my part to offer some alternative argument about transgenderism for the assesment of this argument to be complete. None is therefore being offered.

[Immanuel Can]

This argument has been examined and it failed....

So you say. I wonder if anybody, even you, thinks it's true. I don't.

But I'm still curious why you're so ashamed of your own position. You said "differences," but can't name even one.