The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Thepeopl]

what is this, the pick on Kowani day?

my question has been answered

https://wisetendersnob.medium.com/this- ... 576e53c9c8

[Fahran]

-snip-

Your efforts to distract people from the self-evidential ridiculousness of Catholicism is neither effective nor amusing.

I will point out that self-evident (evidential is bad diction and I will fight you) ridiculousness of Catholicism is not the subject of this thread and that she was jokingly responding to something that is at least somewhat more related to the subject of this thread.

[Adamede]

Okay, here's a question for everyone in this debate. What is a woman? What is a man?

Featherless bipeds.

[Fahran]

Okay, here's a question for everyone in this debate. What is a woman? What is a man?

Featherless bipeds.

*meticulously plucking a chicken in preparation for an epic punking*

Behold! Plato's man!

[Vassenor]

Okay, here's a question for everyone in this debate. What is a woman? What is a man?

Featherless bipeds.

...I'll get the chicken.

[The New California Republic]

Okay, here's a question for everyone in this debate. What is a woman? What is a man?

A laughing stock, a thing of shame for the Superman/woman.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Okay, here's a question for everyone in this debate. What is a woman? What is a man?

Women are people who stab you in the back. Men walk up to you and hit you with a big heavy object over the noggin. Both suck in their own special way, and cannot be trusted. Thankfully I am post-gender, for I am post-human and my new robotic parts are coming in the mail, so soon I will be unstoppable.

Better look me in the eyes motherfuckers.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

Okay, here's a question for everyone in this debate. What is a woman? What is a man?

something something gender roles something something social construct something something trans rights

[Andsed]

Okay, here's a question for everyone in this debate. What is a woman? What is a man?

Flesh Mechas.

[Auzkhia]

Okay, here's a question for everyone in this debate. What is a woman? What is a man?

Is it society that has collectively made up gender? Possessing certain gonads? Your brain or having certain souls?

Frankly, gender is illogical. The best working answer for any identity definition boils down to "a woman/a man is anyone who self-identifies as such."

That is technically logically fallacious but like, assigning logic to gender is a fool's errand. Like, some people are happier with being a certain gender, or other genders even. How they arrived to that gender identity is irrelevant. I'm just a genderqueer woman with a fluid and fluctuating identity, and that is happening no matter what you believe or even what I believe. I'm just me and I know that this works for me.

I think metaphysics of gender, though interesting, should be sent backseat to trans liberation and achieving more gender freedom, in which society no longer has a hierarchy based on it, or hell, no unjust hierarchies at all!

[Suriyanakhon]

Okay, here's a question for everyone in this debate. What is a woman? What is a man?

A laughing stock, a thing of shame for the Superman/woman.

Nice try, Zarathustra.

[Kowani]

You should familiarise yourself with the work of the eminent thirteenth century theologian and essential oil salesman Thomas Aquinas.

That was, it seems, a waste of time

my question has been answered

https://wisetendersnob.medium.com/this- ... 576e53c9c8

Wait, I knew all this already
I spend a lot of time keeping an eye on disinformation and conspiracies

[Sanghyeok]

Since I woke up this morning and this is somehow still up for bloody debate: Transmen are men. Transwomen are women

If Sun has the right to disregard and disrespect people's identify because they are "impossible", we have the right to refer to people Sun looks up to as hacks and fucknuggets. At least one of us is definitely wrong when we say these things.

I'd recommend just ignoring Sun. Every discussion ends up turning into essentialism, Catholicism, or Opus Dei.

Don't forget "I'm not transphobic but I just think all transgender people are still sinning."

[Nuroblav]

Okay, here's a question for everyone in this debate. What is a woman? What is a man?

Vsauce on NSG?

Since I woke up this morning and this is somehow still up for bloody debate: Transmen are men. Transwomen are women

If Sun has the right to disregard and disrespect people's identify because they are "impossible", we have the right to refer to people Sun looks up to as hacks and fucknuggets. At least one of us is definitely wrong when we say these things.

Fucknuggets is now my new favourite word.

[Kowani]

Okay, here's a question for everyone in this debate. What is a woman? What is a man?

Vsauce on NSG?

Since I woke up this morning and this is somehow still up for bloody debate: Transmen are men. Transwomen are women

If Sun has the right to disregard and disrespect people's identify because they are "impossible", we have the right to refer to people Sun looks up to as hacks and fucknuggets. At least one of us is definitely wrong when we say these things.

Fucknuggets is now my new favourite word.

I demand royalties

[Auzkhia]

I'd recommend just ignoring Sun. Every discussion ends up turning into essentialism, Catholicism, or Opus Dei.

Don't forget "I'm not transphobic but I just think all transgender people are still sinning."

It's literally "Love the sinner, hate the sin" but for trans people rather than gay people.

I remember that.

[Celritannia]

So when are we getting the 10,000 word rebuttal to Kowani's 10,000 word explanation of essence?

I brought beer and snacks and paid good seats for this.

[The New California Republic]

So when are we getting the 10,000 word rebuttal to Kowani's 10,000 word explanation of essence?

I brought beer and snacks and paid good seats for this.

No, we aren't.

[Suriyanakhon]

Don't forget "I'm not transphobic but I just think all transgender people are still sinning."

It's literally "Love the sinner, hate the sin" but for trans people rather than gay people.

I remember that.

Whenever I've had this line used on me, I try to imagine a me that would exist if I took their logic seriously and followed it to the logical conclusion (detransition), but I wouldn't exist.

Transphobes think that gender identity is a costume that can be taken off at the end of the day and not an integral part of one's personhood.

[Auzkhia]

It's literally "Love the sinner, hate the sin" but for trans people rather than gay people.

I remember that.

Whenever I've had this line used on me, I try to imagine a me that would exist if I took their logic seriously and followed it to the logical conclusion (detransition), but I wouldn't exist.

Transphobes think that gender identity is a costume that can be taken off at the end of the day and not an integral part of one's personhood.

Exactly! Like, they said oh gay people have the right to a straight marriage but like, having gay people act straight for god or the baby jesus, etc isn't a solution to homophobia or whatever. Like, the end goal of transphobes is to cast trans people out of the public and existence even. In today's environment, they may not directly kill us or criminalize us, but they will make being trans impossible, they'll restrict medical transition, they'll stop giving us documents with the right gender, etc.

It's just to push out those deemed "undesirable" and yet, they say we still deserve kindness but as long we are cis and straight.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Okay, here's a question for everyone in this debate. What is a woman? What is a man?

Someone who identifies as any of these things.

[Thepeopl]

Okay, here's a question for everyone in this debate. What is a woman? What is a man?

A silly, useless and harmful segregation of humanity.
Just by naming a "difference" humans will act upon it.
Just like religion
https://slate.com/human-interest/2005/0 ... trong.html
It fulfills the need for group formation
https://nobaproject.com/modules/the-psy ... -of-groups

But ofcourse it also makes people believe there are differences and others should be excluded.

behavior largely conforms to our preconceived expectations. All else being equal, we act as we think we’re expected to act—

[Odreria]

Okay, here's a question for everyone in this debate. What is a woman? What is a man?

Somebody who I think seems like a woman or a man respectively (note this doesn’t work for anybody else)

[Sundiata]

The change would be accidental and not essential. The person would still maintain the essence with which they were born. For example, a rainbow is actually a rainbow. To reflect that rainbow through different prisms does not make that rainbow a kangaroo.

So... you are saying my wooden desk is, in fact, a tree?

It's a tree that's had a number of changes done to it, but still it a tree and not a desk, because a desk must have the innate essence of a desk?

Almost there, but no. While your desk is essentially a tree, a tree is not ordered to the accidence of a desk. A tree does not assume the accidence of a desk unless its accidental order is distorted.

1) The desk is formally a tree but materially a desk by disordering the tree.
2) The desk is actually a tree but in potentiality a desk by disordering the tree.
3) The desk is essentially a tree but exists as a desk by disordering the tree.
4) The desk is really tree but has the accidence of a desk by disordering the tree.

Because things have nature we can generally rely on them to act in predictable and identifiable ways (the basis of science). However, when they exceptionally don't this is an example of a thing failing to achieve its perfection. Things essences are inclined towards perfection and that metaphysical observation forms the basis of the natural law. In the more abstract sense, even the feminist movement has an essential and rightly ordered nature. In that particular case, it would be New Feminism.

Our task as people is to keep things in order and, at the personal level, get in order.

[Vassenor]

So... you are saying my wooden desk is, in fact, a tree?

It's a tree that's had a number of changes done to it, but still it a tree and not a desk, because a desk must have the innate essence of a desk?

Almost there, but no. While your desk is essentially a tree, a tree is not ordered to the accidence of a desk. A tree does not assume the accidence of a desk unless its accidental order is distorted.

1) The desk is formally a tree but materially a desk by disordering the tree.
2) The desk is actually a tree but in potentiality a desk by disordering the tree.
3) The desk is essentially a tree but exists as a desk by disordering the tree.
4) The desk is really tree but has the accidence of a desk by disordering the tree.

Because things have nature we can generally rely on them to act in predictable and identifiable ways (the basis of science). However, when they exceptionally don't this is an example of a thing failing to achieve its perfection. Things essences are inclined towards perfection and that metaphysical observation forms the basis of the natural law. In the more abstract sense, even the feminist movement has an essential and rightly ordered nature.

This still doesn't explain why we need to treat a philosopher from several centuries ago as the be-all and end-all of this subject.

Or to put it another way:

He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times.