Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:23 pm Who is to say what is and what is not essential?

Well, the transgenderers insist upon it. Their argument is, "I'm essentially female, though trapped in a male body." If being "female," though, is not essentially anything, then their plea reduces to nothing.

So in that case, the transgender advocates are the essentialists: I only asked the question of whether or not that was consistent...a fair question.

It is only a problem in your mind; a mind hell bent on imposing its moral standards on others.

That's ad homimem, a fallacy...and totally boring. Even were I the most fanatical moralist, it would not suggest whether my morals in this case were right or wrong. That's basic logic.

Meanwhile, the degree of "imposing" over email is certainly minimal. Nobody can "impose" anything here.

But here again are the real questions.

In summary, then: are we essentialists, or not? We cannot be both essentialists and non-essentialists rationally.

Are we sure that biology is more negotiable than psychology, and why would we think so?

Then, how does a man know what "being a woman" is?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:00 pm Typical arrogant and childish male behaviour

Ah...so you're an essentialist? For you, "male" is something specific, and has associated "childish" characteristics, you say?

Or are you denying that it does, because you "wink" at the end?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:33 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:23 pm Being "female" and biologically male; or being "male" and biologically female- is the essence of transgenderism.

That was not the question. We know what the ideology says: what we want to know is if maleness is essential, and femaleness is essential...or if they mean nothing at all.

Got an answer?

[/quote]
Yes, I already did answer that. But your bigotry got in the way.

Why can't to be more tolerant?

I haven't said what I will "tolerate," and what I will not. You're jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

You have already denied million of humans and billions of animals their essence. I'd say that is bigoted.
Essence, if it means anything has to precede the clumsy language that we try to apply to it. Femininity is a quality that is evident in male and female creatures.

However, since you refer to the vanilla virtue of "tolerance," it is worth pointing out that this begs the question of what one is "tolerating."

People in Cambodia "tolerated" massacres, and people in Germany "tolerated" Hitler. I doubt you'd say that either was a good thing. On the other hand, "tolerating" things that are right is good.

Fallacy: Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Try and stick to the plot please.

The question is, "Is this right or wrong?" not "Is it being tolerated?"

If I say you are intolerant, then toleration becomes part of the issue.
Why would I care if you think bias against "transgenders" is wrong. That is only your unfortunate opinion, because you are intolerant.
Your intolerance leads to you thinking that transgenderism is wrong.
This is the inevitable conclusion here.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:01 pm Essence, if it means anything has to precede the clumsy language that we try to apply to it. Femininity is a quality that is evident in male and female creatures.

We're not talking about "femininity." That just means "resemblance to femaleness," not the actuality of it. It's the ontological quality of being female that's in doubt.

If I say you are intolerant, then toleration becomes part of the issue.

It is actually a compliment to call someone "intolerant", if what a person refuses to "tolerate" is something evil or erroneous. It's only negative if what is not being "tolerated" is something that should be tolerated.

So your response begs the question. You haven't established here what should be tolerated, and why it ought to be. Barring that, your comment would be mere ad hominem rhetoric.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:50 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:00 pm Typical arrogant and childish male behaviour

Ah...so you're an essentialist? For you, "male" is something specific, and has associated "childish" characteristics, you say?

Or are you denying that it does, because you "wink" at the end?

Just telling it as I see it Only fools lock themselves into silly 'ist' labels.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:50 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:00 pm Typical arrogant and childish male behaviour

Ah...so you're an essentialist? For you, "male" is something specific, and has associated "childish" characteristics, you say?

Or are you denying that it does, because you "wink" at the end?

Just telling it as I see it Only fools lock themselves into silly 'ist' labels.

Well, which one are you "telling"? I can't really decide how to read what you said, because your "wink" seems to contradict your words.

Do you think "male" is a specific thing, with associated characteristics? Or do you think that's absurd?

gender fluidity is hooey...deviations from the baseline are just that, 'deviations' (deviations do not redefine the baseline)...there no 'third sex'...personal self-definition doesn't trump reality.

...and...

So much to-do about nuthin'.

The biological baseline...

If you got XY your flesh will have certain gross and subtle characteristics that distinguish you from XX, which entails a differing set of gross and subtle fleshy characteristics.

Since you 'are' the flesh, the status of 'it' determines the status of 'you'.

So: as XY, you'll tend to behave in certain ways, think in certain ways, and as XX, you'll tend to behave in certain ways, think in certain ways.

Language users take those gross and subtle fleshy qualities (coupled with the behaviors and thinking that often goes along with those gross and subtle qualities) and assign placeholders (he, she, male, female, masculine, feminine, etc.)...the placeholders (language itself) are an endeavor to describe the world and the things in the world...accuracy of description is paramount.

So: when Joe, feelin' girly, mutilates his body to appear female, pumps himself full of estrogen, dresses as a woman, and legally changes his name to Josephine, all he's done is 'mutilate his body to appear female, pump himself full of estrogen, dress as a woman, and legally change his name to Josephine'...he's not a woman...he's male.

As I say elsewhere: till micro-tech allows itsy-bitsy robots to go in and re-code his DNA, all the surgeries, injections, make overs, self-defining, and shifty cultural agendas will not, does not, trump Reality (Joe is male).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:12 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:01 pm Essence, if it means anything has to precede the clumsy language that we try to apply to it. Femininity is a quality that is evident in male and female creatures.

We're not talking about "femininity." That just means "resemblance to femaleness," not the actuality of it. It's the ontological quality of being female that's in doubt.

If I say you are intolerant, then toleration becomes part of the issue.

It is actually a compliment to call someone "intolerant", if what a person refuses to "tolerate" is something evil or erroneous. It's only negative if what is not being "tolerated" is something that should be tolerated.

So your response begs the question. You haven't established here what should be tolerated, and why it ought to be. Barring that, your comment would be mere ad hominem rhetoric.

Seriously I think you left your brain somewhere.

It is obvious enough that male and female are not essential qualities, and there is no reason they should be.
I think you need to get out more and study nature.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 2:21 am gender fluidity is hooey...deviations from the baseline are just that, 'deviations' (deviations do not redefine the baseline)...there no 'third sex'...personal self-definition doesn't trump reality.

...and...

So much to-do about nuthin'.

The biological baseline...

If you got XY your flesh will have certain gross and subtle characteristics that distinguish you from XX, which entails a differing set of gross and subtle fleshy characteristics.

Since you 'are' the flesh, the status of 'it' determines the status of 'you'.

So: as XY, you'll tend to behave in certain ways, think in certain ways, and as XX, you'll tend to behave in certain ways, think in certain ways.

But there is more to it than that obviously.
XXY, XYY, are also combinations.
And even is XX, XY cases the amount of sex drive, attraction to the opposite, attraction to the same sex, all differ remarkably in all people.

So "tend to", is right.

"So "tend to", is right."

Indeed. There's a lot of flexibility, a lot of wiggle room, within 'male' & 'female'.

But: Joe, a genetic male, who declares himself female, falls outside of that wiggle room in large way. There's a disorder at work there, not a mistake of psyche being mismatched with body. Absolutely, Joe can define himself as he likes (in the same way he can choose to let a cancer eat his organs), but no one is obligated to participate in his delusion, to treat him as her (just as no one is obligated to tell him 'way to go, Joe!' if he lets cancer eat him).

Flexibility isn't fluidity.

And: as I say 'deviations from the baseline are just that, 'deviations' (deviations do not redefine the baseline)'. XXY, XYY fall outside the baseline. We recognize them, but we don't redefine the baseline (XX, XY).

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:31 am It is obvious enough that male and female are not essential qualities, and there is no reason they should be.

If that's true, then nobody can "need to be a female." There's no such thing. It's not essential, either in the sense of "necessary" or in the sense of "objectively real." It's neither. A man who wants to "be female" is asking for a delusion, and no more. There's no difference, you say.

If what you say above is what you think is true, then you cannot advocate transgender "rights," because logically, nobody can have a "right" to a totally plastic thing like "femaleness." For the implication of your view is that "femaleness" has no essence, no reality, no solidity: so nobody can have a right to have it.

Happy with that position?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 6:45 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:31 am It is obvious enough that male and female are not essential qualities, and there is no reason they should be.

If that's true, then nobody can "need to be a female." There's no such thing.

No! Why would you think that?

There's no difference, you say.

Not I did not say that

If what you say above is what you think is true, then you cannot advocate transgender "rights," because logically, nobody can have a "right" to a totally plastic thing like "femaleness." For the implication of your view is that "femaleness" has no essence, no reality, no solidity: so nobody can have a right to have it.

Happy with that position?

I think you are just an idiot.
You go from misconception to non sequitur.
You're a waste of time and effort.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:36 pm I think you are just an idiot.
You go from misconception to non sequitur.
You're a waste of time and effort.

All ad hominem. No thought. Nothing relevant.

Too boring for me.

Be well.

For others, I'm going to repost my original questions. Anybody who has an answer to any of them is welcome to comment.

In summary, then: are we essentialists, or not? We cannot be both essentialists and non-essentialists rationally.

Are we sure that biology is more negotiable than psychology, and why would we think so?

Then, how does a man know what "being a woman" is?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:50 pm For others, I'm going to repost my original questions. Anybody who has an answer to any of them is welcome to comment.

In summary, then: are we essentialists, or not? We cannot be both essentialists and non-essentialists rationally.

Are we sure that biology is more negotiable than psychology, and why would we think so?

Then, how does a man know what "being a woman" is?

I think you questions are still rubbish.
First, because you are not interested in any answers, and secondly your third statement is conditional on you not having listened to any answers, as you have begun the sentence "Then,...".

You are going to stay confused until you realise two things:
Until you realise that you can think yourself a woman without being an essentialist.
And until you realise that essentialism is nothing more than a ball and chain, by which we organise our prejudices.

You mind is closed off.