The Feminine Perspective against the Manosphere

[0bleak]

I just went and looked at his facebook, there is a picture of him speaking on the steps of the state capital, the only white guy I see in the picture.
It looks like he has written next to it (putting in blanks to preserve anonymity) "Once again, a wonderful year of Hip Hop 2023. The 50th Anniversary Aug 11th in ___. Peace to HHF ___ and Sen ___ for declaring ___ Hip Hop Day Aug 11th. And of course the City of ___ and ___. I want to personally thank Dr ___ for her last minute assistance. Forever grateful. Looking forward to another great year and events this summer 2024 Peace #TheBestPartHipHop101 #HipHop50

 

[0bleak]

I dunno, but stuff like that kind of seems to me that he is accepted as black.

 

[line b]

 

[?!..!?]

Well you'll notice I did say 'to some extent.' A strong correlation between two variables can still tell us something important about objective reality even if there is not a perfect one-to-one relationship.

Right, but what is the relationship and what is the two variables? And IDK why a "perfect one-to-one relationship" would be needed here. But where is it necessary for you to affirm that any essential gender property.

I have a white cousin that grew up in a mixed race area, and has consistently, since a very young age "acted black" where I have seen, at least a couple of times, black people refer to him as black or telling him he's black (and his physical body is very much not black - white skin, blonde hair) like it's meant totally genuinely like they accept him as black.

I have no doubt that the black community accepts some non-black people, the question is, does that literally make him black? We have to take into account that he's not victim to racism and he doesn't need to benefit from affirmative action. Also if contributing to the black community can literally make a white person black, then wouldn't Rachel Dolezal count as black? Are you defending transracialism?

 

[0bleak]

I have no doubt that the black community accepts some non-black people, the question is, does that literally make him black? We have to take into account that he's not victim to racism and he doesn't need to benefit from affirmative action. Also if contributing to the black community can literally make a white person black, then wouldn't Rachel Dolezal count as black? Are you defending transracialism?

I'm just responding to "A black clique might have a white friend who acts black, but they still identify him as white."

 

[mixed_biscuits]

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.

Why are you ashamed to acknowledge your transblack identity? As for gender and sex being distinct, Oxford Dictionary of Psychology (latest edition): "Gender: 1. Non-technically a synonym for sex. More specifically, especially in feminist psychology, the behavioural, social and cultural attributes associated with sex" - note that it is not separate from sex.

 

[?!..!?]

I'm just responding to "A black clique might have a white friend who acts black, but they still identify him as white."

Sure but doesn't their calling him black figuratively mean that they accept him into their community rather than mean that they literally think he is black?

 

[?!..!?]

Why are you ashamed to acknowledge your transblack identity? As for gender and sex being distinct, Oxford Dictionary of Psychology (latest edition): "Gender: 1. Non-technically a synonym for sex. More specifically, especially in feminist psychology, the behavioural, social and cultural attributes associated with sex" - note that it is not separate from sex.

Read Gayle Rubin. Since the 70s, scholars have distinguished gender and sex. No one said sex and gender were separable: obviously all people who have genders also have sexes. The point was that sex and gender can vary independently of one another and that they should be defined as distinct concepts.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Again, a gendered quality is essential if and only if all members of the relevant gender must share it.

This is not what is typically meant by essentialism, which is about forces or a template or some predetermination underlying phenomena. Read Simon Baron Cohen's The Essential Difference for this take on psychological sex differences and autism.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

i have no doubt that the black community accepts some non-black people, the question is, does that literally make him black? We have to take into account that he's not victim to racism and he doesn't need to benefit from affirmative action. Also if contributing to the black community can literally make a white person black, then wouldn't Rachel Dolezal count as black? Are you defending transracialism?

You are aware that there are places in which the vast majority of people are black. Furthermore, black parents can have white children and also, culturally, many people in the West consider someone to be black even if they're predominantly white skinned ancestry and their skin is more white than black. By your essentialist criterion there is no essential requirement to be a member of a race.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Read Gayle Rubin. Since the 70s, scholars have distinguished gender and sex. No one said sex and gender were separable: obviously all people who have genders also have sexes. The point was that sex and gender can vary independently of one another and that they should be defined as distinct concepts.

You've contradicted yourself there and the Oxford reference work is higher status than some random theorists.

 

[?!..!?]

This is not what is typically meant by essentialism, which is about forces or a template or some predetermination underlying phenomena.

Totally false. Essentialism differs from determinism. Essentialism is the claim that all members of a kind must share the same quality. Also, even if some gendered qualities are partially determined by sex, why does that make sex or gender essential? For a predetermined gender quality to be essential it would have to be the case that all members of the relevant gender share that quality. But even in cases where sex determines a gender quality, that still doesn't make it true that all members of that gender share the determinative sexed quality. There's more diversity in sex that you want to admit.

Don't forget that biology tells us that even sexed qualities are not essential!

You are aware that there are places in which the vast majority of people are black. Furthermore, black parents can have white children and also, culturally, many people in the West consider someone to be black even if they're predominantly white skinned ancestry and their skin is more white than black.

None of these facts support transracialism. Yes, a black mother and a white father can have a baby that is black in that it is of mixed race. But that doesn't mean the baby can change its race later in life. Further, cultural blackness differs from racial blackness. So you still haven't addressed the main issue which is that you equivocate between race and cultural identity.

By your essentialist criterion there is no essential requirement to be a member of a race.

I have no idea what this means. I have no essentialist criterion. But if I did, why would it then follow that there would be no essential requirement? You talk a big game about logic but when push comes to shove, you've no argument.

You've contradicted yourself there and the Oxford reference work is higher status than some random theorists.

Can you explain what the contradiction is? LMAO Gayle Rubin LITERALLY INTRODUCED THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GENDER AND SEX TO FEMINISM. SHE STARTED THE DISCOURSE ON GENDER IN FEMINISM (not John Money, that dude was irrelevant). Also it is bad philosophy to assume a dictionary's definition of concept matters more than a theorist's definition. LOL Gayle Rubin is far from a random theorist. The fact that you think she is shows you know next to nothing about feminism or gender theory.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Totally false. Essentialism differs from determinism. Essentialism is the claim that all members of a kind must share the same quality. Also, even if some gendered qualities are partially determined by sex, why does that make sex or gender essential? For a predetermined gender quality to be essential it would have to be the case that all members of the relevant gender share that quality. But even in cases where sex determines a gender quality, that still doesn't make it true that all members of that gender share the determinative sexed quality. There's more diversity in sex that you want to admit.

Don't forget that biology tells us that even sexed qualities are not essential!


None of these facts support transracialism. Yes, a black mother and a white father can have a baby that is black in that it is of mixed race. But that doesn't mean the baby can change its race later in life. Further, cultural blackness differs from racial blackness. So you still haven't addressed the main issue which is that you equivocate between race and cultural identity.


I have no idea what this means. I have no essentialist criterion. But if I did, why would it then follow that there would be no essential requirement? You talk a big game about logic but when push comes to shove, you've no argument.


Can you explain what the contradiction is? LMAO Gayle Rubin LITERALLY INTRODUCED THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GENDER AND SEX TO FEMINISM. SHE STARTED THE DISCOURSE ON GENDER IN FEMINISM (not John Money, that dude was irrelevant). Also it is bad philosophy to assume a dictionary's definition of concept matters more than a theorist's definition. LOL Gayle Rubin is far from a random theorist. The fact that you think she is shows you know next to nothing about feminism or gender theory.

Your definition of essentialism is idiosyncratic and wrong. It's bad practice to define things idiosyncratically just so that they help your thesis.

Furthermore, if Tea and I are agreeing on something the chance that it's objectively correct is nigh-on 100%

Yes, Rubin is wrong, obviously. Gender theory is a niche backwater, intellectually speaking.

Generally speaking, you are not a philosophical thinker...the 'philosophy' you peddle is just regurgitated received wisdom from your niche and for anything that your niche hasn't looked at, you just use general received wisdom from a blurry version of US 'progressivism'. As I said before, you're interested in etiquette rather than argument and rational thinking.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Read Gayle Rubin. Since the 70s, scholars have distinguished gender and sex. No one said sex and gender were separable: obviously all people who have genders also have sexes.

I'm pretty sure @mixed_biscuits hasn't had any sexes in years, if ever.

 

[?!..!?]

Your definition of essentialism is idiosyncratic and wrong.

But why should I care? I know that the majority of feminists and gender theorists share my definition of essentialism becuase I read the literature. You haven't. But here's a bigger question for you: do you believe that all women must share some quality in common?

Yes, Rubin is wrong, obviously. Gender theory is a niche backwater, intellectually speaking.

Cool man. Got an argument?

. As I said before, you're interested in etiquette rather than argument and rational thinking.

I'm interested in the study of social conventions of which etiquette is one. Also, you've already shown that you have a very poor understanding of logic, since you don't even know how to properly evaluate an argument. Also, if we study society we have to study non-rational mental states. No one but Hegel thought everything in society is rational.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

But why should I care? I know that the majority of feminists and gender theorists share my definition of essentialism becuase I read the literature. You haven't. But here's a bigger question for you: do you believe that all women must share some quality in common?


I'm interested in the study of social conventions of which etiquette is one. Also, you've already shown that you have a very poor understanding of logic, since you don't even know how to properly evaluate an argument. Also, if we study society we have to study non-rational mental states. No one but Hegel thought everything in society is rational.

Ok, but they're wrong because most other academics and the vast majority of non-academics disagree; when they become persuasive enough to update the definitions in other fields, then maybe it will be time to take them seriously. But that's not going to happen any time soon.

You're a socially conventional drone, not a thinker

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Cultists are going to cult; we knew that already

 

[?!..!?]

Ok, but they're wrong because most other academics and the vast majority of non-academics disagree.

No, the vast majority of non-bigoted non-academics agree with Butler. Also, most academics who understand Butler agree with them. The academics who dislike Butler don't even disagree with them, they just don't understand them. And they say that openly. That's why they complain so much about Butler's alleged obscurity. They don't argue against Butler, they just consider Butler unreadable. Too bad for them that plenty of academics find Butler easy to read.

Also you've repeatedly criticized arguments from popularity. Now you're making an argument from popularity. Now who's contradicting themselves? (Certainly not me, since you can't actually point out any inconsistencies in my argument.)

You're a social conventional drone, not a thinker

Should I care?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

No, the vast majority of non-bigoted non-academics agree with Butler.

This is the only reason why many appear to put up with her stinking theses - because her acolytes tarnish their reputation through insults, like you are here.

 

[?!..!?]

This is the only reason why many appear to put up with her stinking theses - because her acolytes tarnish their reputation through insults, like you are here.

No it's because the vast majority of non-bigots can see the plethora of empirical evidence supporting Butler's view. I also think it's far from an insullt to call someone like you, who denies the existence of transgender people, a bigot. That's more like an accurate description on my part.