The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[The New California Republic]

But what do those even mean?
You are labeling something with no definition.

What is "male conduct" and what is "female conduct"?

Male conduct is a male behaving in line with his male essence which is by definition, masculine. Female conduct is a female behaving in line with her female essence which is by definition, feminine.

Virtue, conduct which is rightly ordered.

You are still using essence in this context without really resolving what is meant by it. I asked you to, but you just gave me some circular explanations that did nothing.

[Sundiata]

The person's essence is what they are regardless of how they identify themselves.

Which is what? That's in effect just saying "essence is essence", it gets us nowhere, it's circular.

Male conduct is a male behaving in line with his male essence which is by definition, masculine. Female conduct is a female behaving in line with her female essence which is by definition, feminine.

Virtue, conduct which is rightly ordered.

You are still using essence in this context without really resolving what is meant by it. I asked you to, but you just gave me some circular explanations that did nothing.

Essence is the property that makes a thing what it fundamentally is. It is contrasted with accident, pertaining to this conversation, the appearance of a thing.

[Celritannia]

Which is what? That's in effect just saying "essence is essence", it gets us nowhere, it's circular.

Essence is the property that makes a thing what it fundamentally is. It is contrasted with accident, pertaining to this conversation, the appearance of a thing.

Alright, so in that regards, an essence can be female trapped in a male body.

[The New California Republic]

Which is what? That's in effect just saying "essence is essence", it gets us nowhere, it's circular.

Essence is the property that makes a thing what it fundamentally is. It is contrasted with accident, pertaining to this conversation, the appearance of a thing.

Again that does nothing to say what this essence is. It is still just saying "essence is essence."

[Sundiata]

Essence is the property that makes a thing what it fundamentally is. It is contrasted with accident, pertaining to this conversation, the appearance of a thing.

Alright, so in that regards, an essence can be female trapped in a male body.

No, because a female essence is for a female body and a male essence for a male body. They work as composites.

[New haven america]

Alright, so in that regards, an essence can be female trapped in a male body.

No, because a female essence is for a female body and a male essence for a male body.

You're talking about dicks aren't you?

I'm sorry, you keep bringing up "Essence" but yet refuse to describe what it actually is, the mind can only go so many places.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Alright, so in that regards, an essence can be female trapped in a male body.

No, because a female essence is for a female body and a male essence for a male body. They work as composites.

And you have proof an essence exists?

[Sundiata]

No, because a female essence is for a female body and a male essence for a male body.

You talking about dicks aren't you?

I'm sorry, you keep bringing up "Essence" but yet refuse to describe what it actually is.

No, a man castrated man, for example would still be a male as he has the essence of one. As to be make necessitates a male essence or essential form.

[Celritannia]

Alright, so in that regards, an essence can be female trapped in a male body.

No, because a female essence is for a female body and a male essence for a male body. They work as composites.

How do you know that?

[New haven america]

You talking about dicks aren't you?

I'm sorry, you keep bringing up "Essence" but yet refuse to describe what it actually is.

No, a man castrated man, for example would still be a male as he has the essence of one. As to be make necessitates a male essence or essential form.

Then what the fuck is "Essence" supposed to be?

And, hypothetically, what do you think would happen if male "Essence" was trapped in a female body?

[The New California Republic]

Alright, so in that regards, an essence can be female trapped in a male body.

No, because a female essence is for a female body and a male essence for a male body.

Again to repeat, you have still not defined what these respective essences even are. These sentences you are using are utterly incoherent as a result. You may as well substitute any other word out of the dictionary for the word "essence" because it'd make about the same amount of sense since you refuse to explain what they are.

[New haven america]

No, because a female essence is for a female body and a male essence for a male body. They work as composites.

How do you know that?

He read parts of a book written 2000 years ago.

[Celritannia]

No, because a female essence is for a female body and a male essence for a male body.

Again to repeat, you have still not defined what these respective essences even are. These sentences you are using are utterly incoherent as a result. You may as well substitute any other word out of the dictionary for the word "essence" because it'd make about the same amount of sense since you refuse to explain what they are.

Female marmite is for the female body.

[New haven america]

Again to repeat, you have still not defined what these respective essences even are. These sentences you are using are utterly incoherent as a result. You may as well substitute any other word out of the dictionary for the word "essence" because it'd make about the same amount of sense since you refuse to explain what they are.

Female marmite is for the female body.

Male vegemite is for the male body.

[Suriyanakhon]

Eh, considering the existence of passing trans people, I'm going to doubt that one has to be biologically female to be truly feminine.

Or that "imitated" femininity can be so identical to "true" femininity that I question why one needs to be a distinction.

A man can pass as a woman, but his essence is still that belonging to a man which is inherently masculinity. That's why there's a distinction, because men and women are essentially different. Adopting the accidence of either does not change the essential substance of either. To adopt the accidence of the opposite is, if you will, to wear a costume.

So psychological or physical features don't determine whether or not someone is a man or woman? An invisible substance which effects nothing at all is?

[Sundiata]

No, because a female essence is for a female body and a male essence for a male body. They work as composites.

And you have proof an essence exists?

Logical proof.

A human being, for example, is very different from a cat. We distinguish them by their properties, these properties reveal how and why they exist, or their essences.

[Suriyanakhon]

Male conduct is a male behaving in line with his male essence which is by definition, masculine. Female conduct is a female behaving in line with her female essence which is by definition, feminine.

Virtue, conduct which is rightly ordered.

You are still using essence in this context without really resolving what is meant by it. I asked you to, but you just gave me some circular explanations that did nothing.

I guess instead of genital police at restroom stalls we need essence police?

To make sure people are using the right restrooms as their essence.

[Celritannia]

And you have proof an essence exists?

Logical proof.

A human being, for example, is very different from a cat. We distinguish them by their properties, these properties reveal how and why they exist, or their essences.

That's not logical proof of essences at all.

[New haven america]

And you have proof an essence exists?

Logical proof.

A human being, for example, is very different from a cat. We distinguish them by their properties, these properties reveal how and why they exist, or their essences.

That's not an answer.

[Suriyanakhon]

And you have proof an essence exists?

Logical proof.

A human being, for example, is very different from a cat. We distinguish them by their properties, these properties reveal how and why they exist, or their essences.

Properties exist, essences do not.

[Celritannia]

You are still using essence in this context without really resolving what is meant by it. I asked you to, but you just gave me some circular explanations that did nothing.

I guess instead of genital police at restroom stalls we need essence police?

To make sure people are using the right restrooms as their essence.

My essence is non-confirmative to your pre-determined essence views.

[Cordel One]

And you have proof an essence exists?

Logical proof.

A human being, for example, is very different from a cat. We distinguish them by their properties, these properties reveal how and why they exist, or their essences.

We're not different species. Furthermore, while DNA is a thing, "essence" is not.

That is, unless you're talking about estrogen, testosterone, and other hormones. Those can also be changed, so if that's what you are talking about than transitioning is valid under your belief system.

Logical proof.

A human being, for example, is very different from a cat. We distinguish them by their properties, these properties reveal how and why they exist, or their essences.

That's not logical proof of essences at all.

Different species exist, so clearly gender essence is the next logical step.

[Suriyanakhon]

I guess instead of genital police at restroom stalls we need essence police?

To make sure people are using the right restrooms as their essence.

My essence is non-confirmative to your pre-determined essence views.

You don't have to tell me, I literally transitioned to another essence apparently.

[Stellar Colonies]

So we're back at essences.

[The New California Republic]

And you have proof an essence exists?

Logical proof.

A human being, for example, is very different from a cat. We distinguish them by their properties, these properties reveal how and why they exist, or their essences.

Non sequitur of the worst kind: some premises lead to a conclusion that you refuse to define.