Gender Essentialism

[Nick_A]

"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.

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

Are we really human? How would you know? The Socratic axiom reads "Know Thyself." The implication is that we don't know who or what we are. It is the most basic philosophical question. If we were truly human we would know how to respond as human beings to the fallen human condition and its hypocrisy which dominates worldly events. But since we are as we are, everything continues as it is for the world as a whole. Only a small minority willing and able to make the necessary efforts to "Know Thyself" or have the conscious experience of oneself can become truly human. If there ever are enough of them it will make a difference but that is a very big IF since the World is against them.

[henry quirk]

"Are we really human?"

I am.

#

"How would you know?"

Cuz I fit the description.

#

"The Socratic axiom reads "Know Thyself." The implication is that we don't know who or what we are. It is the most basic philosophical question."

Not to me.

#

"If we were truly human we would know how to respond as human beings to the fallen human condition and its hypocrisy which dominates worldly events."

I don't share your view on this, Nick. I don't be believe I fell, or am living with the consequence of someone else's fall. No, as I see it: folks fall (or are pushed) but it's an individual matter, not a familial one; it's a singular calamity, not a global one. Sure, we live in a turmoil (same as it ever was), but this is seven billion plus turmoils, each idiosyncratic, not one global disaster.

[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.

And: nada

Wow.

So many words, forum-wide, from folks with so little conviction...

[Nick_A]

"Are we really human?"

I am.

#

"How would you know?"

Cuz I fit the description.

#

"The Socratic axiom reads "Know Thyself." The implication is that we don't know who or what we are. It is the most basic philosophical question."

Not to me.

#

"If we were truly human we would know how to respond as human beings to the fallen human condition and its hypocrisy which dominates worldly events."

I don't share your view on this, Nick. I don't be believe I fell, or am living with the consequence of someone else's fall. No, as I see it: folks fall (or are pushed) but it's an individual matter, not a familial one; it's a singular calamity, not a global one. Sure, we live in a turmoil (same as it ever was), but this is seven billion plus turmoils, each idiosyncratic, not one global disaster.

You write that you fit the description for being a human being and having the being of a human but what actually is this quality? Consider the question from the OP. IC wrote

1.There is something unique and special to being female, something that cannot be generated by males..

2. There is nothing unique to being female: any current differences that appear to exist between men and women are socially constructed, not essential.

Seems simple enough. A person seeks a definition of what it means to be female. who knows? How many even have a working hypothesis that could answer the question. If a woman knows what it objectively means to be female she can answer the question. but since we don't "Know Thyself" and are content with arguments all that results is chaos.

A person can wake up one day and ask themselves seriously what they are doing. They live a life in the world which just sort of continues automatically. Life lives them rather than they living life. When this happens the logical question of who am I and why I am here are felt. A person realizes they don't know what it means to be human since habitual life lives them

[henry quirk]

I may not be able to tell you what it means to be human, or be a person, or be a man or woman, or to be Henry Quirk, but...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

...and I know me, and I know what I know (which ain't much but is enough for me to live in sumthin' other than angst and woe).

Where I'm wrong (as I have been, many times) Reality will be kind enough to kick me square in the keister (as it has, many times); where I'm right (as I occasionally am) Reality will grudgingly reward me (as it has, on occasion).

See, I think most folks who are angsty and woeful are angsty and woeful cuz they reject what they know, and cuz they refuse to learn from Reality's tender percussive keister therapy, not cuz of some legacy soul stain.

The fault in not in Humanity but only in some men.

[Nick_A]

I may not be able to tell you what it means to be human, or be a person, or be a man or woman, or to be Henry Quirk, but...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

...and I know me, and I know what I know (which ain't much but is enough for me to live in sumthin' other than angst and woe).

Where I'm wrong (as I have been, many times) Reality will be kind enough to kick me square in the keister (as it has, many times); where I'm right (as I occasionally am) Reality will grudgingly reward me (as it has, on occasion).

See, I think most folks who are angsty and woeful are angsty and woeful cuz they reject what they know, and cuz they refuse to learn from Reality's tender percussive keister therapy, not cuz of some legacy soul stain.

The fault in not in Humanity but only in some men.

I agree with you as far angst and woe. they are useless expressions of negative emotions but these emotions give people pleasure. Of course freedom from these expressions lies in the willingness and ability to forgive. But that takes the fun out of it. From your link:

Jacobellis v. Ohio[11] (1964) narrowed the scope of the Roth decision. Justice Potter Stewart, in his concurrence to the majority opinion, created the standard whereby all speech is protected except for "hard-core pornography". As for what, exactly, constitutes hard-core pornography, Stewart said "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." The film in question was Louis Malle's The Lovers.

A person can "feel" something wrong with pornography but who knows what or why. If some kid asks they my be told God gets insulted or some other explanation designed to pass the buck but in reality without knowing what we are there is no satisfying explanation. Is there any objective explanation as to why a woman should reject pornography? A woman may say it is degrading towards women but why is it degrading? People are just having fun.

The point I am making is that we underestimate our own ignorance. But that idea got Socrates killed. Ignorance is a powerful foe.

[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.

[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.

No, for the reasons I have given you enough times now.

You mean "No, trans people can't move genders," or "No, they can"? You don't make it clear here. But giving you credit for being rational, it would have to be the former.

All you are doing is constantly making me have to repeat myself over and over again.

So long as your position continues to be impossible to articulate rationally, it's going to be questioned. That's what happens on a philosophy website.

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.

Nobody argued that, so I can't imagine what the "whoops" is. Classic straw-man tactic, that.

IF essentialism is nonsense, that does not mean categories all cease to make sense,

Actually, you might need a refresher course on the term "Gender Essentialism." It's a Feminist term, not merely an Aristotelian one, and it refers to the following, as per Oxford:

gender essentialism

1. The belief that males and females are born with distinctively different natures, determined biologically rather than culturally. This involves an equation of gender and sex. The term is often used pejoratively by constructionists (see constructionism), but strategic essentialism is a common activist strategy, and biological essentialism surfaces in the insistence of some feminists that the physical facts of sexual difference do have entailments. See also difference model; essentialism.

2. The belief that gay people are born gay (a form of biological determinism) and/or that there is a distinctive ‘gay sensibility’.

3. The attribution of a homogeneous identity to a labelled group (such as women or gay males), ignoring differences within it. This can be either a naïve essentialism (for instance, labelling people in widely-different cultures and historical periods simply as ‘gay’), or a politically-motivated strategic essentialism.

Definitions 2 and 3 aren't particularly relevant here. But #1 is. Please note: Gender Essentialism is "a common activist strategy" which occurs "in the insistence of some feminists that the physical facts of sexual difference do have entailments."

Indeed they do. And it's these "entailments" with which we are interested on this thread.

But let's let you deny Gender Essentialism, and reject the Feminists. Okay. You still get "entailments," such as that there is no logic to transgenderism. So really, Essentialism itself doesn't change the outcome one bit. So I wonder why you bother with it so much, since you lose the point anyway, even if you manage to discredit it.

Are you willing to sacrifice the law of identity now?

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

Why so?

Because the Law of Identity insists that things have a stable identity predicated on the essential nature of what they are: and that in logic, once you have identified a thing as what it is, you must remain consistent with that identification throughout any logical sequence of thought. That which is once predicated as "man" stays "man." That which is first predicated as "woman" remains "woman."

That's just untrue though. The categories are useful and used, no essence is required for this.

And my reply is still this:

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?

Then you (rather pointlessly) add,

Everybody is a unique example of personhood, this does not entail that no such as thing as personhood can be considered.

Personhood is not the issue. Nobody at all is arguing that men who imagine they can become women, or women who think they're men, are not "persons." They're clearly confused, suffering persons. That, we can clearly see. The issue is whether a man can become a woman, or a woman can become a man...whether it's a rationalizable position, or not.

The answer is clearly "Not."

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Nobody argued that, so I can't imagine what the "whoops" is. Classic straw-man tactic, that.

This directly conflicts with the many occasions you have claimed that if there is no essence then there is no way to tell things apart. Such as here...

Why does every category of object have to have some unique "essence" that no other category can generate?

Because something is necessary in order for us to be able to distinguish an "object" from others. If there is no such feature, then everything is the same.

So, for example, if the axiom, "Women are not men" is true, it can only be because women are something essential that men quite simply are not. And if there is absolutely no such essential distinction, then women are just small men.

Your entire argument depends on yopur 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.


I'm pretty sure I did ask before by the way. But I was under the impression that gender essentialism is distinct from the Aristotelian version you are presenting because rather than claim that all universals are defined by such essence, they think that gender is one of a special set of categories that are. Obviously if they are in error then they wouldn't have that fallback circular claim to the effect that therefore gender doesn't have any meaningful reference.

[Immanuel Can]

This directly conflicts with the many occasions you have claimed that if there is no essence then there is no way to tell things apart. Such as here...

Why does every category of object have to have some unique "essence" that no other category can generate?

Because something is necessary in order for us to be able to distinguish an "object" from others. If there is no such feature, then everything is the same.

So, for example, if the axiom, "Women are not men" is true, it can only be because women are something essential that men quite simply are not. And if there is absolutely no such essential distinction, then women are just small men.

Not at all. I did not say that essence is the motivation for which we tell things apart, or that it's the motivation for believing in "essence" in the first place, as if the case could be made pragmatically...I said it's the means by which we tell things apart, which means empirically. There literally WOULD BE no way to tell things apart, absence an essence.

So the fact that we do tell things apart betrays our deep conviction that the things we distinguish do, in fact, have an essence.

But again, it's doesn't matter one whit. Non-Essentialism isn't one bit more friendly to transgenderism, logically.

But if you think you can show it is, go ahead.

[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, or else the category doesn't reference anything at all.

Exist--Does Not Exist. Yes, that's pretty much the definition of a true dichotomy.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your evasion is very visible.

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]

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?

[FlashDangerpants]

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, but no use to you. Surgically alterable body parts and changeable socially constructed roles can be actual grounds for distinction. Your argument depends on loading the concept up with extra details specifically the immutability part.