The Feminine Perspective against the Manosphere

[mixed_biscuits]

False. First, why should we accept that actions define race? There's no reason. Second, what we are studying here is literally social conventions, so I'm not appealing to convention in lieu of an argument, I'm explaining the conventions that tell us how to define race.

The 'should' is because it's an assumption, the same assumption made with the argument you stated. Some people define race that way; what authority do you have to stop them?

I don't believe that Butler intends her arguments to be merely descriptive; she wants things to change as a result.

 

[?!..!?]

The 'should' is because it's an assumption, the same assumption made with the argument you stated. Some people define race that way; what authority do you have to stop them?

Right but like you said we need to justify our assumptions. I've justified my assumption about gender. You haven't justified your assumption about race. And look how you go from arguing that the opinion of the majority doesn't matter to saying that I'm supposed to care about the views of a few scattered fringe lunatics.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

But if it's a facet of sex, how do we differentiate it from sex? I never denied that there are connections between sex and gender, I said that sex doesn't determine gender. And if you claim sex determines gender, then you are again reducing gender to sex.

It could be differentiated from sex in the same way that 'grassiness' is differentiated from 'grass' - it focuses on the socially expressed elements of sex

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Right but like you said we need to justify our assumptions. I've justified my assumption about gender. You haven't justified your assumption about race. And look how you go from arguing that the opinion of the majority don't matter to saying that I'm supposed to care about the views of a few scattered fringe lunatics.

No, you didn't justify it; you just said that it has to be accepted because justification is not required (otherwise there's an infinite regress)

 

[?!..!?]

It could be differentiated from sex in the same way that 'grassiness' is differentiated from 'grass' - it focuses on the socially expressed elements of sex

Right but the moment you allow for socially expressed elements of sex, you're just talking about gender. How do we socially express anything except through behavior?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

scattered fringe lunatics.

This is bigoted. You have to show why they're lunatics despite using the same logic

Your only argument thus far is that it's an unusual thing to do (in this particular local context)

 

[?!..!?]

No, you didn't justify it; you just said that it has to be accepted because justification is not required (otherwise there's an infinite regress)

Again, my justification was that large amounts of empirical elements support the assumption. Almost no empirical evidence supports your assumption about race.

You have to show why they're lunatics despite using the same logic

Because I've never heard of a single example of a person's actions defining them as a member of a race. A black clique might have a white friend who acts black, but they still identify him as white.

Your only argument thus far is that it's an unusual thing to do (in this particular local context)

But you made that same argument about gender when you said "large swathes" of the world don't believe in gender.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Right but the moment you allow for socially expressed elements of sex, you're just talking about gender. How do we socially express anything except through behavior?

Things aren't just things because they 'behave' in a certain way; they are things also because they actually are those things

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Because I've never heard of a single example of a person's actions defining them as a member of a race. A black clique might have a white friend who acts black, but they still identify him as white.

Ok, but this white guy will lead them through Butler's argument and they'll be convinced and accept him as transblack

 

[?!..!?]

Things aren't just things because they 'behave' in a certain way; they are things also because they actually are those things

I have no clue what you are getting at here. Yes, actions often do define a person's social identity. My active support of the political left partially defines me as a leftist for example. Fighting fires defines a person as a firefighter.

 

[?!..!?]

Ok, but this white guy will lead them through Butler's argument and they'll be convinced and accept him as transblack

I mean, if you want to try to convince black people that transracialism is true, go ahead, but I doubt you'll succeed. Just make sure you record your efforts on video for our entertainment -- er, edification.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I have no clue what you are getting at here. Yes, actions often do define a person's social identity. My active support of the political left partially defines me as a leftist for example. Fighting fires defines a person as a firefighter.

There is an underlying action, which is 'being' - essentialism is action too

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I mean, if you want to try to convince black people that transracialism is true, go ahead, but I doubt you'll succeed. Just make sure you record your efforts on video for our entertainment -- er, edification.

People are already doing this and it will be widely accepted within our lifetime, for Butlerian reasons

 

[?!..!?]

There is an underlying action, which is 'being' - essentialism is action too

No idea what you mean here. Yes, to be is to do...but you just said actions don't define things, so I don't understand your point. I don't see how an action can be essential.

 

[?!..!?]

People are already doing this and it will be widely accepted within our lifetime, for Butlerian reasons

Right but why should I care about those people? If it WILL be widely accepted, why don't you wait for that to happen before you make the argument?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

No idea what you mean here. Yes, to be is to do...but you just said actions don't define things, so I don't understand your point. I don't see how an action can be essential.

Because all the 'essentialist' stuff is also acting

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Right but why should I care about those people? If it WILL be widely accepted, why don't you wait for that to happen before you make the argument?

Because it's good to choose to do the right thing before you're forced to do it, don't you think?

 

[?!..!?]

Because all the 'essentialist' stuff is also acting

No its not...? Can you give an example?

 

[?!..!?]

Because it's good to choose to do the right thing before you're forced to do it, don't you think?

Why is this the right thing to do?

Let me give an even more simple criticism. Butler's logic doesn't actually match up with the logic of transracialism. Here's why: sex and gender are two different identity categories. My sex can be female while my gender is a man. Now your transracialist arguments says there's some sort of racial category analogous to gender, one defined by actions, not birth. So let's call "race" the category analagous to sex and "cultural identity" the category analagous to gender (I can't think up a better name for it, sorry.) Here's the problem: you claim that a person can be black by actively contributing to black culture. You're confusing race and cultural identity. "Black" is a race. Now I can't actually give an example of a cultural identity distinct from race, so the burden there is on you. But one thing's for sure: since behavior does NOT define race, a white person who actively contributes to black culture is not black by doing so. A cultural identity applies to him but that doesn't change his race anymore than a transgender woman changes her sex just by acting like a woman. You're claiming that "black" refers to both a race and a cultural identity. That's analogous to saying "female" is both a sex and a gender, which is false. You're equivocating. So the logic of transracialism doesn't apply to gender.

 

[line b]