Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:17 pm ...you are not interested in any answers,...

Actually, I heard all of yours. I got them, believe me.

You say:

essentialism is nothing more than a ball and chain, by which we organise our prejudices.

So "being a man/woman" is nothing-in-particular (i.e. having no essential characteristics; non-essentializable).

That means you can't believe rationally in transgender rights. Because "transgender rights" are rights to nothing-in-particular, according to you. A man who wants to be a "woman" or a woman who wants to be a "man" is wanting nothing, essentially -- nothing that can be specified.

I've got it, alright: but I doubt you've thought through your own view. It clashes with other claims you've made, such as that it's "prejudiced" to say one thing or the other about that. A person cannot be "prejudiced" about a "nothing."

But I'd rather hear from someone who has thought through their view rationally.

Oh, a person can 'think' of himself in all manner of ways.

Stan, a white man, can 'think' he's a black woman, of that I have no doubt.

But: does Stan , a white man, thinkin' he's a black woman, make it it so?

I say: no, Stan, a white man, thinkin' he's a black woman does not make him into a black woman.

What if Stan, a white man, spends considerable resources darkening his skin to appear black, and hormonally, surgically, reconfiguring his body to appear as female, does this make him a black woman?

I say: no, Stan, a white man, has simply expended considerable resources to darken his skin and reconfigure his body to affect the appearance of a black woman. At his foundational (genetic) level, Stan is a white man.

Stan is ill. He suffers from a dis-ease of the thinkin'. He is disordered.

The treatment, obviously, is to realign his thinkin' with what he actually 'is', not not the other way around.

Should we force treatment on him?

Only if he becomes a threat to others. Till then: leave him be (meaning: leave him be...don't coddle him, don't financially support him, make no concessions to him or his illness).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:43 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:17 pm ...you are not interested in any answers,...

Actually, I heard all of yours. I got them, believe me.

You say:

essentialism is nothing more than a ball and chain, by which we organise our prejudices.

So "being a man/woman" is nothing-in-particular (i.e. having no essential characteristics; non-essentializable).

That means you can't believe rationally in transgender rights. Because "transgender rights" are rights to nothing-in-particular, according to you. A man who wants to be a "woman" or a woman who wants to be a "man" is wanting nothing, essentially -- nothing that can be specified.

I've got it, alright: but I doubt you've thought through your own view. It clashes with other claims you've made, such as that it's "prejudiced" to say one thing or the other about that. A person cannot be "prejudiced" about a "nothing."

But I'd rather hear from someone who has thought through their view rationally.

QED.
Enjoy your self imposed tyranny.
Just don't try to impose it on others as that makes you a bigot.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 7:25 pm Oh, a person can 'think' of himself in all manner of ways.

Stan, a white man, can 'think' he's a black woman, of that I have no doubt.

But Stan does not need to think of himself as white, or even think of himself as Stan. He is simply carrying around a burden when he does.
Essentialism is a choice.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:45 pm Just don't try to impose it on others as that makes you a bigot.

Don't be silly. You can't "impose" by discussion, through email.

Ridiculous.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:17 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:45 pm Just don't try to impose it on others as that makes you a bigot.

Don't be silly. You can't "impose" by discussion, through email.

Ridiculous.

Urummppphhh!!!

You insult millions.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:06 pm You insult millions.

You think "millions" are silly enough to think an optional email discussion on a philosophy website is "imposing"?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 7:25 pm Oh, a person can 'think' of himself in all manner of ways.

And that's the problem: where does it stop?

Never mind the case where a man thinks he's got to become a woman, or that he is a woman in his head (though he can't have the foggiest notion of whether or not what he's picturing himself as experiencing is really "being a woman" or just his fevered imagination of what that would be like). What about the case of transracializing, or trans-speciesism, or the new one, transageism? How does my belief I'm a Chinese acrobat create a right for me, if I'm a three-hundred pound Serbian? How does my belief that I'm a unicorn make you owe me a right? How does my belief that I'm a twelve year old have any reality to it if I'm fifty-five, and what the heck are you supposed to do about my delusion?

In all cases, there is only one genuinely merciful option: to get the trans person help to realize that he/she has departed reality, and needs help to find his/her way back. But to agree with, then coddle and lock into political status the mental illness and departure from reality with which the sufferer is struggling, how is that any kind of mercy? After the transition, the suicide rate among trans people actually goes marginally UP (45% attempt, versus 46% attempt). That means that agreeing with them, and normalizing their disability, is not producing relief for them: if anything, it's making them worse.

Rather, doing that would just be virtue signalling, posing and showing oneself as 'open minded,' at the expense of making the suffering of a mentally-ill person permanent. That is not kindness.

"But Stan does not need to think of himself as white, or even think of himself as Stan. He is simply carrying around a burden when he does."

As I say: he can think of himself (self-define) as he likes, but his self-defintion doesn't change the fact that, if he's a white man, then he is a white man.

Again: Stan, a white man, declares himself a black woman, or a mutant watermelon, or a martian, or a table, or an ice cold bottle of beer. He may truly believe he's one, or all, of those things. But he's not a black woman, or a mutant watermelon, or a martian, or a table, or an ice cold bottle of beer: he's a white man with dis-eased thinkin'.

#

"(gender) Essentialism is a choice."

Nope. In context: a person can pretend to be other than what they are (or be ill and truly believe they're sumthin' other than what they are) but what they are (the essence of them, if you like) is unchanged.

Bluntly: a guy is a guy is a guy (even if he lops off his tallywacker & wears a dress).

That's easy: it stops with 'me'. That is: Jack is certain he's a mutant watermelon. Odd, yeah? But not a problem till Jack oversteps and demands I eat him. Press me too far & I ain't gonna eat Jack; I'm gonna beat Jack, or Stan when he gets up in my face demandin' I acknowlege he's a fine black woman (instead of a portly white man [in a dress, mebbe sans vienna sausage]).

-----

Rights: Jack & Stan have the same rights as any other person: the right to life, liberty, & property.

And, like any other person, Jack & Stan can forfeit part or all of their life, liberty, or property if either knowingly, willingly deprives another of his life, liberty, or property.

Neither Jack or Stan (or any other person) can lay claim to admiration, acceptance, understanding, submission, or favor.

Now legal priviliige, that there is an entirely different animal. When jackasses begin assigning status to certain folks, backed by force, vote 'em out, or tar & feather 'em, but do not submit.