Gender Essentialism

[Immanuel Can]

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?

"Chair" is really defined on only one axis: function. The word, unlike "woman," has no possible "essences" that have to do with composition, genetics, social contributions, intellect, character qualities, and so on. So for any Gender Essentialist, it's not really any kind of analogy at all. I doubt any of them are going to care what you conclude about a merely functional entity. And I sincerely doubt any Feminists want to take the view that "woman" is merely defined by function...though you can hold out for that, if you wish.

But since, as I have already shown, it does not matter whether or not one is an Essentialist (Chair or Gender) at all for the purposes of my thesis, arguing over whether or not "chair" is essentializable simply does no work at all on the relevant issue. It's off topic.

Hence, I'll let the chair-lovers among us deal with it.

[FlashDangerpants]

A Child however can turn into an Adult.
I assume Child and Adult are categories which meet your standards for having these essences?

[Nick_A]

A Child however can turn into an Adult.
I assume Child and Adult are categories which meet your standards for having these essences?

A Child however can turn into an Adult and a fetus can turn into a baby. It doesn't matter who you kill, they are the same essence. We are all equal.

[Immanuel Can]

A Child however can turn into an Adult.
I assume Child and Adult are categories which meet your standards for having these essences?

My standards? Standards are irrelevant, because it doesn't actually matter what "standard" we decide to accept. If we allow that there is an "essence" of women, and if we don't, we get the same outcome -- transgenderism is still irrational. So it's not about "standards." It's just logic.

[FlashDangerpants]

A Child however can turn into an Adult.
I assume Child and Adult are categories which meet your standards for having these essences?

My standards? Standards are irrelevant, because it doesn't actually matter what "standard" we decide to accept. If we allow that there is an "essence" of women, and if we don't, we get the same outcome -- transgenderism is still irrational. So it's not about "standards." It's just logic.

No. As per my previous...
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.

You have not substantiated your argument. Genders exist as useful categories without any need for the form of essence you describe. There is nothing in this that prevents a member of one set moving to another set.

Transgender types all over the world can now sleep safely in the knowledge that you don't need to offer them mental health services.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Ah, I see your point of confusion on this.

The "essence" of a thing does not have to be a single trait or feature. It can be. It doesn't have to be. It can be an assemblage of features in combination; but so long as that assemblage is unique to the entity in question, such that it distinguishes the unique identity of that thing, it still constitutes an "essence."

Moreover, it is clear that if a particular person does not know or refuses to recognize what the "essence" of womanhood is, that that has any implications as to whether there actually still IS one. Maybe there is, and somebody else knows what it is. Plenty of people think they do. Uniqueness Feminists all insist there is.

Still, for purposes of my argument, it does not matter a whit whether one believes there is such an "essence" or none. Again, in both cases, transgenderism cannot be made intelligible. If, on the other hand, there's no such thing as an "essence," then there is neither BG nor TG for transgenders to "need to leave" or "need to become."

So you're really just going around in circles. What you need to do, in order to really deal with the argument, is show that there is a way that either a)_ one can believe in Gender Essentialism and still believe in transgenderism, or b) one can cogently argue for transgenderism when there are no "genders" for the body-dysmorphic individual to "seek" to become, or to need to "leave."

So have a crack at that, if you can.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Ah, I see your point of confusion on this.

The "essence" of a thing does not have to be a single trait or feature. It can be. It doesn't have to be. It can be an assemblage of features in combination; but so long as that assemblage is unique to the entity in question, such that it distinguishes the unique identity of that thing, it still constitutes an "essence."

You see the words "specific set" in that quote?

Moreover, it is clear that if a particular person does not know or refuses to recognize what the "essence" of womanhood is, that that has any implications as to whether there actually still IS one. Maybe there is, and somebody else knows what it is. Plenty of people think they do. Uniqueness Feminists all insist there is.

Still, for purposes of my argument, it does not matter a whit whether one believes there is such an "essence" or none. Again, in both cases, transgenderism cannot be made intelligible. If, on the other hand, there's no such thing as an "essence," then there is neither BG nor TG for transgenders to "need to leave" or "need to become."

So you're really just going around in circles. What you need to do, in order to really deal with the argument, is show that there is a way that either a)_ one can believe in Gender Essentialism and still believe in transgenderism, or b) one can cogently argue for transgenderism when there are no "genders" for the body-dysmorphic individual to "seek" to become, or to need to "leave."

So have a crack at that, if you can.

I don't have to do that at all, your argument still doesn't work and you are just avoiding your problems, like a cornered Veritas Aquafresh.

IF every category of existence has a unique Aristotelian essence that gives it identity, that applies to all categories, including chairs and tables, adults and children, cats and dogs, knives and forks ... ad infinitum.

IF that categorical essence, by its mere existence, means that girls cannot become boys and boys cannot become girls (due to their lack of the target categorical essence) then that means that nothing can move from any category to any other AT ALL.

None of these are negotiable. You cannot wiggle out of it by saying that chairs can become tables because they aren't complicated enough to have essence, that contravenes the definition of essence you are explicitly working to.

If you want your target gender argument to work on the basis of anything to do with essence, then you will have to argue that girls cannot become women any more than boys can.

You are flogging a fundamentally ill-formed argument. That should have been obvious to you for a fairly long time by now.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't have to do that at all,

Sure, ya do.

You have to find a way to show that transgenderism can make sense on SOME terms. And since it can't make sense on grounds of Essentialism, and it can't make sense on grounds of Anti-Essentialism, it can't make sense at all.

QED.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are avoiding again. I can simply demonstrate that your argument resolves into absurdity and then I don't have to put any additional effort in at all.

IF every category of existence has a unique Aristotelian essence that gives it identity, that applies to all categories, including chairs and tables, adults and children, cats and dogs, knives and forks ... ad infinitum.

IF that categorical essence, by its mere existence, means that girls cannot become boys and boys cannot become girls (due to their lack of the target categorical essence) then that means that nothing can move from any category to any other AT ALL.

None of these are negotiable. You cannot wiggle out of it by saying that chairs can become tables because they aren't complicated enough to have essence, that contravenes the definition of essence you are explicitly working to.

If you want your target gender argument to work on the basis of anything to do with essence, then you will have to argue that girls cannot become women any more than boys can.

[Immanuel Can]

You are avoiding again.

No. I'm just declining to share your error. You'd like to spin me as an Aristotelian, then get into the old, boring argument about chairs...and you're not happy that I won't go there at your demand. But I won't.

If you want your target gender argument to work on the basis of anything to do with essence, then you will have to argue that girls cannot become women any more than boys can.

No, that's a category error.

Girl-woman is part of the single essential continuum "female," as any Feminist of any stripe will happily acknowledge. But it doesn't matter if it were not so...because transsexualism cannot be rationalized even if we assume there is NO essence of "female."

In any case, you've still got to give me any set of assumptions -- Essentialist, if you wish, or Anti-Essentialist if you want to be that -- that rationalizes how a person can "need" become something that he/she either is essentially incapable of becoming, or which is not a real thing because no gender essences exist.

Go ahead, if you can. If you can't your argument's just dead in the water.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are avoiding again.

No. I'm just declining to share your error. You'd like to spin me as an Aristotelian, then get into the old, boring argument about chairs...and you're not happy that I won't go there at your demand. But I won't.

IF every category of existence has a unique Aristotelian essence that gives it identity, that applies to all categories, including chairs and tables, adults and children, cats and dogs, knives and forks ... ad infinitum.

This is necessary by definition given that (Aristotelian) definition which you already presented...

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."

Refusing to discuss things that are wrong with your argument is just evasion.
This is a problem with the argument you present, if you aren't willing to address it properly, then you aren't being honest and open.

Your defintion of essence does not allow you to exclude anything, including chairs.

[Immanuel Can]

Your defintion of essence does not allow you to exclude anything, including chairs.

I can't help but note that you've dodged the issue of presenting any kind of defence for transgenderism on either Essentialism or Non-Essentialism.

But to your point, I already explained that chairs are essentially functionally defined. You have not suggested that women are functionally defined. But if you have such an argument, let's see it. Otherwise, your analogy doesn't work. And since it doesn't apply, I'm simply not bothering with it.

So let me return this to you, since you sent me one...

[FlashDangerpants]

Your defintion of essence does not allow you to exclude anything, including chairs.

I can't help but note that you've dodged the issue of presenting any kind of defence for transgenderism on either Essentialism or Non-Essentialism.

You have used a false argument to attack them, demonstrating the falsity of that argument is sufficient to deal with your attack. Veritas tried to make you provide an alternative for his bad 'syllogism' just now and you blanked him on that because there was no need for you to do more than show his arg to be broken. If you want to pursue this silly complaint further, I will give it consideration once you have done your duty by Veritas.

But to your point, I already explained that chairs are essentially functionally defined. You have not suggested that women are functionally defined. But if you have such an argument, let's see it. Otherwise, your analogy doesn't work. And since it doesn't apply, I'm simply not bothering with it.

So let me return this to you, since you sent me one...

The question you continue to evade is simple enough. You have defined essence in such a away that all things with identity or names, including categories such as male and female, depend upon it for their names and identities. This is the basis for your gender can't exist at all if there is no essence argument. Therefore the category of chair must have such an essence exactly like maleness and femaleness, and so must the category of table. You do agree that they have this essence? Otherwise you must update your definition of essence.

Your argument against gender migration depends on essence being insoluble and non-transferrable. I mean, I leave that option open of course. If you believe that a chair being turned into a table acquires table essence in that transformation, that will work fine for me too.

[Immanuel Can]

I can't help but note that you've dodged the issue of presenting any kind of defence for transgenderism on either Essentialism or Non-Essentialism.

I will give it consideration once you have done your duty by Veritas.

Read the last message: it's done. She asked for reasoned critiques, and we gave them, and mine are in that message.

The question you continue to evade is simple enough. You have defined essence in such a away that all things with identity or names, including categories such as male and female, depend upon it for their names and identities.

I have not done so, nor can you quote where I have. You will have to forgive me if I don't simply buy into a false characterization of my premise. Nobody else would either.

Now, what is your defence of transgenderism on a Non-Essentialist basis? Let's see what you've got. I'll even set it up for you.

Premise 1: There is no such thing as gender. (This is necessary for Non-Essentialism)
Premise 2:
Conclusion: Therefore it is cogent for people to want to change gender. (The specified conclusion)

All you need do is supply your middle premise, and your argument will be clear. But you can already see that nothing will work.

[FlashDangerpants]

The question you continue to evade is simple enough. You have defined essence in such a away that all things with identity or names, including categories such as male and female, depend upon it for their names and identities.

I have not done so, nor can you quote where I have. You will have to forgive me if I don't simply buy into a false characterization of my premise. Nobody else would either.

That is self defeating on its own. IF non-essentialism requires that there is no such thing as gender, then it requires there is no such thing as chairs.

Let me remind you what your own definition of essence was, and I will include the thing you were denying which is relevant.

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."

You have defined essence in such a away that all things with identity or names, including categories such as male and female, depend upon it for their names and identities, that is not a mischaracterisation, the proof is there in black and white, with your own emphasis in red. In advance of your next quibble, feel free to leave out "name", it is disposable in this sentence.

What is becoming apparent through these shenanigans is that actually you want to equivocate at will between the Aristotelian version of essence when it suits you (gender) and a more modern one when your own concepts don't favour your argument (chair). That's why you are so transparently desperate not to not use the word essence at all in reference to the category of chair.