Gender Essentialism

[Immanuel Can]

t does beg the question of why an essence is necessary for categories to reference anything..

Well, to help you out, let's stop calling anything an "essence." Feminists do, but maybe you don't like Feminists, or something.

So let's call it "actual grounds for distinction." The question, then, becomes simply, "Is there an actual grounds for distinction between women and men?" The alternative, of course, is that any such distinctions are merely conventional, merely superficial, and not substantive, objective or real. Take your pick. I don't mind which you say is true.

What's your answer to that?

Fine for me,...

I'm sorry...I must have missed your answer. Which one were you opting for? Say again?

"Surgery" plus "constructed role" makes a man into a woman, and a woman into a man...was that your position? Just want to be sure.

[henry quirk]

Not beyond the superficial and cosmetic they can't.

You're a guy, yeah? You really believe your 'guyness' goes no deeper than obvious body part and social construct?

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, to help you out, let's stop calling anything an "essence." Feminists do, but maybe you don't like Feminists, or something.

So let's call it "actual grounds for distinction." The question, then, becomes simply, "Is there an actual grounds for distinction between women and men?" The alternative, of course, is that any such distinctions are merely conventional, merely superficial, and not substantive, objective or real. Take your pick. I don't mind which you say is true.

What's your answer to that?

Fine for me,...

I'm sorry...I must have missed your answer. Which one were you opting for? Say again?

"Surgery" plus "constructed role" makes a man into a woman, and a woman into a man...was that your position? Just want to be sure.

Don't try to railroad me. I refer you to my previous...

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.

I have no interest in the specifics or details and you have no shown interest in such either.

Your argument is circular Mannie, quit squirming and deal with the actual problem.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sorry...I must have missed your answer. Which one were you opting for? Say again?

"Surgery" plus "constructed role" makes a man into a woman, and a woman into a man...was that your position? Just want to be sure.

Don't try to railroad me. I refer you to my previous...

Either way, obviously the categories of male and female are used because they are useful, and this implies there is a difference.

You mean a real, substantive, permanent difference, or just an imaginary, socially-constructed one?

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 your position is that, given surgery and a re-constructed role, there's no such thing as a "woman" that cannot also be a "man," and no such thing as a "man" that cannot also be 100% "woman"?

Just checking. I want to be sure I've got your position before we sort it out.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your entire argument depends on your supposed dichotomy that either there is an essence to a category, or else the category doesn't reference anything at all. So, yes, it does beg the question of why an essence is necessary for categories to reference anything, and you do respond only by saying that if there is no essence there cannot be a category. Your argument has been viciously circular so far.

[Immanuel Can]

Your entire argument depends on your supposed dichotomy that either there is an essence to a category,

Nope. The argument works both ways. I just want to find out which way it works for you.

So again,

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:42 pm
Either way, obviously the categories of male and female are used because they are useful, and this implies there is a difference.

You mean a real, substantive, permanent difference, or just an imaginary, socially-constructed one?

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 your position is that, given surgery and a re-constructed role, there's no such thing as a "woman" that cannot also be a "man," and no such thing as a "man" that cannot also be 100% "woman"?

Just checking. I want to be sure I've got your position before we sort it out.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't need a postition on any of that. Nothing here comes down to whether I can offer a better description. YOU presented YOUR argument that trannies are mad, and WHAT we are testing here is whether THAT argument is valid or not. It is circular, face facts and put the thing out of its misery.

All I have offered is that there are such categories as male and female, and we sort ourselves into those categories for purposes. The details of that sorting are a matter I don't care about. But I am not the one proferring an argument that it must take some specific form, so I don't need to care. So you are wasting time trying to force that task on me. Unless you are abandoning your circular argument and moving on to some form of actual inquiry.

Your entire argument depends on your supposed dichotomy that either there is an essence to a category, or else the category doesn't reference anything at all. So, yes, it does beg the question of why an essence is necessary for categories to reference anything, and you do respond only by saying that if there is no essence there cannot be a category. Your argument has been viciously circular so far.

The division of labour in this matter is entirely clear. You have the burden of supporting your argument to strengthen it against criticism. I have the irritation of reading the thing and getting straight answers out of you when you try desperately to ignore those problems. Letting you cheat your way out of your end is not going to assist understanding.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't need a postition on any of that.

Sure you do. It's an inevitable dichotomy. Either there is, or there is not some real difference between "man" and "woman."

It's a simple question. All you've got to do is answer it.

[FlashDangerpants]

The division of labour in this matter is entirely clear. You have the burden of supporting your argument to strengthen it against criticism. I have the irritation of reading the thing and getting straight answers out of you when you try desperately to ignore those problems. Letting you cheat your way out of your end is not going to assist understanding.

[Immanuel Can]

The division of labour in this matter is entirely clear. You have the burden of supporting your argument to strengthen it against criticism.

Yeah. I did that. I showed how both Essentialism and Non-Essentialism disprove transgender ideology, several pages ago.

You ignored half the argument, attributed the rest to Aristotle, claimed my conclusion was dependent on Essentialism being the only option, and then said that man-woman differences were both real, and at the same time, purely social constructs.

So I've been waiting for a logical position to emerge, so I can address it. But nothing logical has appeared...just a bunch of contradictory claims about how gender is both real and not real. The real deficiency, therefore, has not been in the original argument, but in the failure of a rational critique to it to emerge.

But I'll still let you answer the question, if you're ready to.

[FlashDangerpants]

The division of labour in this matter is entirely clear. You have the burden of supporting your argument to strengthen it against criticism.

Yeah. I did that. I showed how both Essentialism and Non-Essentialism disprove transgender ideology, several pages ago.

Your entire argument depends on your supposed dichotomy that either there is an essence to a category, or else the category doesn't reference anything at all. So, yes, it does beg the question of why an essence is necessary for categories to reference anything, and you do respond only by saying that if there is no essence there cannot be a category. Your argument has been viciously circular so far.

[Immanuel Can]

Your entire argument depends on your supposed dichotomy that either there is an essence to a category, or else the category doesn't reference anything at all.

In deference to your ire, I allowed a rewording. I simply asked if there are any real, objective, certain, non-constructed, irreducible, non-imaginary (you pick your word: I don't care which you choose) differences between men and women. You were allowed to drop the word "essential," which you (in contrast to many Feminists) don't think refers to anything.

That's pretty darn fair, I think you'd have to say. But still, you won't answer the question. Once you do, I can clear things up for you immediately.

So go ahead: answer the question, and I'll solve your issue.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your entire argument depends on your supposed dichotomy that either there is an essence to a category, or else the category doesn't reference anything at all.

In deference to your ire, I allowed a rewording. I simply asked if there are any real, objective, certain, non-constructed, irreducible, non-imaginary (you pick your word: I don't care which you choose) differences between men and women. You were allowed to drop the word "essential," which you (in contrast to many Feminists) don't think refers to anything.

That's pretty darn fair, I think you'd have to say. But still, you won't answer the question. Once you do, I can clear things up for you immediately.

So go ahead: answer the question, and I'll solve your issue.

That would be cosmetic. Your argument would merely be a circle with a new word. Circularity is a logical issue in argument, not something to be resolved with trivial sophistry.

[Immanuel Can]

Your entire argument depends on your supposed dichotomy that either there is an essence to a category, or else the category doesn't reference anything at all.

In deference to your ire, I allowed a rewording. I simply asked if there are any real, objective, certain, non-constructed, irreducible, non-imaginary (you pick your word: I don't care which you choose) differences between men and women. You were allowed to drop the word "essential," which you (in contrast to many Feminists) don't think refers to anything.

That's pretty darn fair, I think you'd have to say. But still, you won't answer the question. Once you do, I can clear things up for you immediately.

So go ahead: answer the question, and I'll solve your issue.

That would be cosmetic.

Try it. Find out.

[henry quirk]

Is there are any real, objective, certain, non-constructed, irreducible, non-imaginary difference between man and woman?

...or...

Is gender fluid, mutable, interchangeable, just a social construct, or, is gender fixed, immutable, not subject to change, sumthin' intrinsic to the person?

...or...

Can a man really turn into a woman, or can he only pretend to be a woman?

C'mon, guy: shit, or get off the