The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Istoreya]

So what are you talking about?

Their respective essences or forms.

Which you have yet to provide evidence of. Again, this seems to be about your beliefs, but what you need to remember is that your belief system does not encompass the entire world. God doesn't exist for everyone.

[The New California Republic]

So what are you talking about?

Their respective essences or forms.

"When we are talking about essences we are talking about essences."

[Vassenor]

Their respective essences or forms.

"When we are talking about essences we are talking about essences."

Yeah this gets tiring.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Their respective essences or forms.

"When we are talking about essences we are talking about essences."

I'm pretty sure he means souls. Sundiata is claiming that God gave you a male soul and you can't ever be a female as a result because your soul is inherently male.

Here I am thinking "my soul isn't inherently anything. Idek if souls exist."

[Esalia]

I know, right? This whole idea of essences. It sounds like pure and utter bullshit someone made up to be transphobic. So silly

No, no. I shouldn't laugh. That was rude of me to do. But, the notion of hylomorphism is not intended to disparage people who identify as transgender.

It might not be intended, but with how circular the logic is and the lack of an explanation of what beyond a vague "male bodies have male essences, female bodies have female essences" means a biological male is always a man and will never be a woman and a biological female is always a woman and will never be a man, it really does come off as if its sole purpose is to deny the identities of trans people.

Even worse, considering what's been presented and the sole non-arbitrary reading I could find was shot down, it also seems totally arbitrary in its denial of trans people.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I actually read the Vatican publication. In full. Urgh, now I feel vile and in need of a shower. It was 100% meaningless religious prattle, too, and not easy for a reasonable person to follow.

First of all, the term "feminine genius" appears exactly zero times in this document. Hence I am forced to interpret Sundiata's argument in the context of this definition:

No really, the true "feminine genius." The phrase which describes the special capabilities of women.

So, what does the document say are the "special capabilities" of women? That is to say, things that women, all women, but only women, are able to do?

It argues, in Section II, that human dignity being primarily a function of mankind's relationship with God, the archetype of feminine dignity is the Biblical relationship between Mary and Jesus, and this is unique to women as only women are able to experience the union between mother and son as the mother. This supposed female nature of motherhood is further referenced in Section III, in the argument that God is presented as possessing both masculine and feminine qualities, in Section V, in discussion about abortion, and in Section VI, where it is stated to be one of the dimensions of the feminine personality and where the concept is extended to cover the "spiritual motherhood" of concern for fellow human beings.

It also argues, in Section III, that men find in women a "'helper' suitable for himself" in "subduing the Earth". The text clarifies that this help is a mutual interdependence, and that the man is also obliged to help the woman in human equality, but it is not stated for what purpose this help ought to be given and whether it is the same purpose for which the woman ought to help the man.

This Section further states that the woman is an entity with whom the man can "unite" for the purposes of reproduction. This is reiterated in discussion about spousal love in Section V.

Section IV has a lot of prattle that basically boils down to "separate but equal" (this section bears an eerie resemblance to the same political rhetoric used by Jim Crow racists to justify racism). It also says things about the role of the woman in redeeming mankind from the Christian superstition of original sin (further reaffirmed in Section VIII). Since there's nothing in this section that mentions what about the inherent abilities of the woman lead to these stated differences, I'm going to ignore it in further analysis.

Section VIII mentions that women are symbolic of human beings' obligation to love and be loved, but it is not stated what ability on part of the woman makes this so.

By the by, there's also a lot - a lot - of convoluted handwaving all throughout the document about how seemingly sexist phrases in the bible aren't actually so, but that's besides the point.

---

Summarising the above, when we are talking about the "special capabilities of women" as described in the document that Sundiata provided, and we accept this "feminine genius" as the characterising feature of the feminine personality, then we find that womanhood as seen by Sundiata are characterised by the following two broad features:

1. Motherhood, in the sense of pregnancy and childbearing but also in the sense of concern for others, and
2. Spousal partnership, to help and be helped by man, to love and be loved by man, and to be joined with man for the purposes of reproduction.

It's immediately apparent that this set of qualities can be categorised differently, by the mutability of these traits as opposed to their purpose:

1. Spiritually feminine traits, of a mutual interdependence with man, a spousal relationship with man, and concern for fellow human beings, and
2. Physically feminine traits, of being able to have sex with men and thereby bear and birth children.

For the traits in list (1), it is not at all obvious why these traits are immutable, as Sundiata seems to think they are. There is a lot of good research brought up by the other posters on this thread that the inherent psychological difference between the sexes is minimal and that gender norms are primarily driven by nurture, so there is no good reason why a person born biologically male or biologically androgynous cannot adopt the traits in list (1) and thereby become feminine (unless you're going to try denying that gay people exist next), nor is there any reason why a person born biologically female cannot lose these traits and thereby become masculine (unless, that is, you're going to start pretending that lesbians or aromantic people don't exist).

As for the traits in list (2), do I really have to point out the obvious problems with defining women as a baby-creating biochemical system? Actually, before I even concede that much without a fight, what about biologically female people who are, due to health problems, infertile?

---

In conclusion, not only is the definition of womanhood that Sundiata is working around horrifyingly homophobic and based on primitive and superstitious delusions, it also doesn't do what Sundiata insists it does, which is make obvious why it is not possible for people who do not have a feminine nature to acquire it, or for those who have it to lose it. Unless Sundiata wants to rely on the list (2) traits and make being a woman conditional on being a baby-making machine, which I suppose wouldn't surprise me considering that he's Christian.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

So the Vatican basically said "women are baby factories"

I'm so tired of traditionalism, especially religious traditionalism. Life is short, be what you want to be.

[The New California Republic]

"When we are talking about essences we are talking about essences."

I'm pretty sure he means souls. Sundiata is claiming that God gave you a male soul and you can't ever be a female as a result because your soul is inherently male.

Here I am thinking "my soul isn't inherently anything. Idek if souls exist."

Even doing that will trap us in a recursive loop again, instead of "the masculine essence is masculine essence" it'd be "the masculine soul is masculine soul" as the framing here has been absent in terms of what is meant. Using something that is a self-referent is meaningless.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

TIL the vatican doesn't think I'm a woman.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

TIL the vatican doesn't think I'm a woman.

Real talk does anyone actually care what the Vatican thinks? These same people said being gay was a sin but cover for boy raping priests all the time. Like what so only consensual gay sex is a sin? Rape of teen boys is fine? I dont take kindly to hypocrites telling me what is or isn't sin, whether it's the Vatican or fans of the former "president."

[Adamede]

TIL the vatican doesn't think I'm a woman.

This just in, one of the largest and oldest religious organizations in the world is traditionalist.

Now on to Tom about how water is wet.

[Luminesa]

I’m going to guess based on references to “feminine genius” that this line of discussion refers to John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris Mater?

[Luminesa]

TIL the vatican doesn't think I'm a woman.

Real talk does anyone actually care what the Vatican thinks? These same people said being gay was a sin but cover for boy raping priests all the time. Like what so only consensual gay sex is a sin? Rape of teen boys is fine? I dont take kindly to hypocrites telling me what is or isn't sin, whether it's the Vatican or fans of the former "president."

The sex abuse scandals are something the Church is working on trying to address, slowly but surely. There’s about 2 billion Catholics, so yes. There are technically 2 billion people who care about what the Vatican thinks one way or another. And if you didn’t care what the Vatican thought, you wouldn’t be talking about it.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Real talk does anyone actually care what the Vatican thinks? These same people said being gay was a sin but cover for boy raping priests all the time. Like what so only consensual gay sex is a sin? Rape of teen boys is fine? I dont take kindly to hypocrites telling me what is or isn't sin, whether it's the Vatican or fans of the former "president."

The sex abuse scandals are something the Church is working on trying to address, slowly but surely. There’s about 2 billion Catholics, so yes. There are technically 2 billion people who care about what the Vatican thinks one way or another. And if you didn’t care what the Vatican thought, you wouldn’t be talking about it.

Care as in take it seriously. And the church could have worked on the issue by turning the rapists into the authorities instead of helping to cover them.

This went on for decades. Why was nothing done about this?

[Luminesa]

I actually read the Vatican publication. In full. Urgh, now I feel vile and in need of a shower. It was 100% meaningless religious prattle, too, and not easy for a reasonable person to follow.

First of all, the term "feminine genius" appears exactly zero times in this document. Hence I am forced to interpret Sundiata's argument in the context of this definition:

No really, the true "feminine genius." The phrase which describes the special capabilities of women.

So, what does the document say are the "special capabilities" of women? That is to say, things that women, all women, but only women, are able to do?

It argues, in Section II, that human dignity being primarily a function of mankind's relationship with God, the archetype of feminine dignity is the Biblical relationship between Mary and Jesus, and this is unique to women as only women are able to experience the union between mother and son as the mother. This supposed female nature of motherhood is further referenced in Section III, in the argument that God is presented as possessing both masculine and feminine qualities, in Section V, in discussion about abortion, and in Section VI, where it is stated to be one of the dimensions of the feminine personality and where the concept is extended to cover the "spiritual motherhood" of concern for fellow human beings.

It also argues, in Section III, that men find in women a "'helper' suitable for himself" in "subduing the Earth". The text clarifies that this help is a mutual interdependence, and that the man is also obliged to help the woman in human equality, but it is not stated for what purpose this help ought to be given and whether it is the same purpose for which the woman ought to help the man.

This Section further states that the woman is an entity with whom the man can "unite" for the purposes of reproduction. This is reiterated in discussion about spousal love in Section V.

Section IV has a lot of prattle that basically boils down to "separate but equal" (this section bears an eerie resemblance to the same political rhetoric used by Jim Crow racists to justify racism). It also says things about the role of the woman in redeeming mankind from the Christian superstition of original sin (further reaffirmed in Section VIII). Since there's nothing in this section that mentions what about the inherent abilities of the woman lead to these stated differences, I'm going to ignore it in further analysis.

Section VIII mentions that women are symbolic of human beings' obligation to love and be loved, but it is not stated what ability on part of the woman makes this so.

By the by, there's also a lot - a lot - of convoluted handwaving all throughout the document about how seemingly sexist phrases in the bible aren't actually so, but that's besides the point.

---

Summarising the above, when we are talking about the "special capabilities of women" as described in the document that Sundiata provided, and we accept this "feminine genius" as the characterising feature of the feminine personality, then we find that womanhood as seen by Sundiata are characterised by the following two broad features:

1. Motherhood, in the sense of pregnancy and childbearing but also in the sense of concern for others, and
2. Spousal partnership, to help and be helped by man, to love and be loved by man, and to be joined with man for the purposes of reproduction.

It's immediately apparent that this set of qualities can be categorised differently, by the mutability of these traits as opposed to their purpose:

1. Spiritually feminine traits, of a mutual interdependence with man, a spousal relationship with man, and concern for fellow human beings, and
2. Physically feminine traits, of being able to have sex with men and thereby bear and birth children.

For the traits in list (1), it is not at all obvious why these traits are immutable, as Sundiata seems to think they are. There is a lot of good research brought up by the other posters on this thread that the inherent psychological difference between the sexes is minimal and that gender norms are primarily driven by nurture, so there is no good reason why a person born biologically male or biologically androgynous cannot adopt the traits in list (1) and thereby become feminine (unless you're going to try denying that gay people exist next), nor is there any reason why a person born biologically female cannot lose these traits and thereby become masculine (unless, that is, you're going to start pretending that lesbians or aromantic people don't exist).

As for the traits in list (2), do I really have to point out the obvious problems with defining women as a baby-creating biochemical system? Actually, before I even concede that much without a fight, what about biologically female people who are, due to health problems, infertile?

---

In conclusion, not only is the definition of womanhood that Sundiata is working around horrifyingly homophobic and based on primitive and superstitious delusions, it also doesn't do what Sundiata insists it does, which is make obvious why it is not possible for people who do not have a feminine nature to acquire it, or for those who have it to lose it. Unless Sundiata wants to rely on the list (2) traits and make being a woman conditional on being a baby-making machine, which I suppose wouldn't surprise me considering that he's Christian.

I mean you’re a self-proclaimed secularist and you read an encyclical by Pope St. John Paul II. I’m not sure if you were expecting him to down on motherhood. That said, while I have not read the encyclical in a WHILE (I did start it at one point), John Paul II was NOT a fan of Jim Crow laws and racism, having witnessed the devastating effects of racism in his native Poland, and he was the first modern Pope to speak against Catholics downing on Jewish people.

Admittedly, I don’t know you or your situation, so I can’t quite say I understand why you feel the way you do. I’m certainly sorry if the reaction you got from JP2’s writing was ANYTHING amounting to the idea that he would be fine with Jim Crow. He was not. I would address the rest of your statement, but I would need to look at the encyclical myself. I don’t know what Sunny read into it-I haven’t followed this conversation.

[Socian]

"When we are talking about essences we are talking about essences."

I'm pretty sure he means souls. Sundiata is claiming that God gave you a male soul and you can't ever be a female as a result because your soul is inherently male.

Here I am thinking "my soul isn't inherently anything. Idek if souls exist."

This, "god gave you a male soul" thing sounds incredibly flawed.

1. does it even mention anywhere in the bible that this is true (I havent read the bible so im seriously asking)

2. If this is true, what about people who were born as hermaphrodites. Do they have both male and female souls or no soul?

3. If god really gave everyone a male and female soul, why are there cultures all around the world that have nonbinary pronouns? One would think that if god gave people these souls NB pronouns wouldnt exist

4. can we eve prove souls exist?

[Luminesa]

The sex abuse scandals are something the Church is working on trying to address, slowly but surely. There’s about 2 billion Catholics, so yes. There are technically 2 billion people who care about what the Vatican thinks one way or another. And if you didn’t care what the Vatican thought, you wouldn’t be talking about it.

Care as in take it seriously. And the church could have worked on the issue by turning the rapists into the authorities instead of helping to cover them.

This went on for decades. Why was nothing done about this?

A lot of coverups by various individuals in higher echelons who hid things from multiple popes, bishops, and cardinals who WERE open to changing things (see: McCarrick basically pulling together groups of bishops in NJ to help him hide his crimes from Cardinal O’Connor, John Paul II, and the next two Popes). This has been so slow because it is a matter of purging internal demons from places of power.

While a smaller fraction of global Catholics label themselves as “devout”, even non-devout Catholics listen to at least SOMETHING the Vatican says most of the time.

[Thepeopl]

I'm pretty sure he means souls. Sundiata is claiming that God gave you a male soul and you can't ever be a female as a result because your soul is inherently male.

Here I am thinking "my soul isn't inherently anything. Idek if souls exist."

This, "god gave you a male soul" thing sounds incredibly flawed.

1. does it even mention anywhere in the bible that this is true (I havent read the bible so im seriously asking)

2. If this is true, what about people who were born as hermaphrodites. Do they have both male and female souls or no soul?

3. If god really gave everyone a male and female soul, why are there cultures all around the world that have nonbinary pronouns? One would think that if god gave people these souls NB pronouns wouldnt exist

4. can we eve prove souls exist?

Well Judaism acknowledged 8 genders.

The Mishnah describes half a dozen categories that are between male and female, such as saris or ailonit — the terms refer to an non-reproductive version of the male or female body, respectively — and categories that refer to ambiguous or indeterminate gender.

https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2015/the ... the-talmud

And the fun part of femininity is one has to be virgin. And mother. And spiritually resonant to the holy words of god and christ. And you need to breastfeed.

So... a lot of women aren't feminin according to this lovely discourse by the pope.

And they call for trinity. Because you always have a relationship with god and a spouse according to the bible. They don't even claim it has to be with a woman. As all children are likenesses of god and parts of a whole.

[Istoreya]

And the fun part of femininity is one has to be virgin. And mother. And spiritually resonant to the holy words of god and christ. And you need to breastfeed.

So... a lot of women aren't feminin according to this lovely discourse by the pope.

Going by that definition, the only woman that has ever existed is Mary, Mother of Jesus.

[Luminesa]

This, "god gave you a male soul" thing sounds incredibly flawed.

1. does it even mention anywhere in the bible that this is true (I havent read the bible so im seriously asking)

2. If this is true, what about people who were born as hermaphrodites. Do they have both male and female souls or no soul?

3. If god really gave everyone a male and female soul, why are there cultures all around the world that have nonbinary pronouns? One would think that if god gave people these souls NB pronouns wouldnt exist

4. can we eve prove souls exist?

Well Judaism acknowledged 8 genders.

The Mishnah describes half a dozen categories that are between male and female, such as saris or ailonit — the terms refer to an non-reproductive version of the male or female body, respectively — and categories that refer to ambiguous or indeterminate gender.

https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2015/the ... the-talmud

And the fun part of femininity is one has to be virgin. And mother. And spiritually resonant to the holy words of god and christ. And you need to breastfeed.

So... a lot of women aren't feminin according to this lovely discourse by the pope.

And they call for trinity. Because you always have a relationship with god and a spouse according to the bible. They don't even claim it has to be with a woman. As all children are likenesses of god and parts of a whole.

Wait wait. So what are the other six they recognize? I’ve never heard that.

So the bolded bit is a bit of a misunderstanding. You don’t HAVE to be a virgin to be feminine. (Otherwise most married women are in trouble ANYWAY.) You also don’t have to be a mother. John Paul II recognized vocations to single life as well as married life, and then of course religious life. John Paul II specifically lauded motherhood because yes, he had a powerful devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and he felt a special love for motherhood as a result. However, he never had anything against single or religious life either. All women have a vocation, but not all women are called to marriage.

That being said, being resonant to the Word of God does enhance one’s femininity in a unique way. This is not to say non-Christian women are not feminine. All girls are born with the beauty that comes with being a girl. However, resonance means reflection. Reflection means a deep awareness of the self, a wholeness that comes from examining one’s life. St. Luke writes that Mary kept everything in her heart. She led a contemplative life, which fueled her desire to love Jesus, her Son and her God. However, all women regardless of their religion should seek to live more aware, resonant, and reflective lives. We become more whole when we understand ourselves.

[Socian]

This, "god gave you a male soul" thing sounds incredibly flawed.

1. does it even mention anywhere in the bible that this is true (I havent read the bible so im seriously asking)

2. If this is true, what about people who were born as hermaphrodites. Do they have both male and female souls or no soul?

3. If god really gave everyone a male and female soul, why are there cultures all around the world that have nonbinary pronouns? One would think that if god gave people these souls NB pronouns wouldnt exist

The cultures I was talking about were: Navajo, Hijra, Muxes, Bugis Tribe (these guys have 5 genders), Classical Judaism (it has 6 genders), Two-Spirit People, Xaniths culture, Fa’afafines, Sekratas, Guevedoces and the Warias

4. can we eve prove souls exist?

Well Judaism acknowledged 8 genders.

The Mishnah describes half a dozen categories that are between male and female, such as saris or ailonit — the terms refer to an non-reproductive version of the male or female body, respectively — and categories that refer to ambiguous or indeterminate gender.

https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2015/the ... the-talmud

And the fun part of femininity is one has to be virgin. And mother. And spiritually resonant to the holy words of god and christ. And you need to breastfeed.

So... a lot of women aren't feminin according to this lovely discourse by the pope.

And they call for trinity. Because you always have a relationship with god and a spouse according to the bible. They don't even claim it has to be with a woman. As all children are likenesses of god and parts of a whole.

[The Blaatschapen]

Just fyi, when I asked the question on masculinity, I did not want to go into a debate on transgender issues.

[The Blaatschapen]

TIL the vatican doesn't think I'm a woman.

No worries, you're all woman to me

[Celritannia]

I disagree with everyone here.

Sundiata is right in that it's an esoteric thing and fundamentally spiritual. He is wrong that this has anything to do with outward behavior or action.

Everyone else is apeing transphobic arguments of "But how do you know you're a woman? Define woman. What is womanhood?", just applying it to cis males and masculinity rather than transwomen and womanhood, engaging in crass materialism that denies inner experience is a form of knowledge.

Masculinity cannot be demonstrated externally and that's the entire point. Demanding evidence for it is folly in the same way that demanding material evidence of someones gender is folly. (They are in fact largely the same thing. In much the same way as sex is conflated with gender, behavior is conflated with masculinity/femininity).

Neither masculinity nor femininity can be demonstrated to other people in much the same way that gender cannot be. It can only be known by the person engaged with their own and can be understood to not be an individual thing that only exists in you through expressions of the internal experience of others with the same experiences communicating something similar.

We are using it as a basic example, not saying that men cannot be feminine, or women cannot be masculine.

[The New California Republic]

Just fyi, when I asked the question on masculinity, I did not want to go into a debate on transgender issues.

It wasn't the intent amongst anyone else either, but someone threw some masculine and feminine essence into our faces and we couldn't let them get away with it.