According to Elizabeth Spelman's 1988 book: Inessential Woman 'gender realism' is "the view that women have some social feature in common that makes them women" – so there is an official term for TRAs: gender realists

submitted by SnowAssMan from philpapers.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]soundsituation 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

I don't know which term is older, but people use "race realism" to describe the same theory in regards to race. I think both are confusing and unnecessary and potentially lend undue credence to ideas that the very people who use this terminology intend to criticize. Besides, we already have a more descriptive term for this concept: essentialism.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

we already have a more descriptive term for this concept: essentialism.

Huh? I thought essentialism was linked to biology: bio essentialism.

OP's link says "gender realism" is about a social feature. I can't say more coz OP's link leads to a source that only says this:

Spelman has famously argued against gender realism (the view that women have some social feature in common that makes them women). Many feminist philosophers have accepted Spelman’s argument and gender realist positions are, generally speaking, rejected. I show that Spelman’s arguments are inadequate and do not give good reasons to reject gender realism per se. I also propose a gender realist position that makes use of David Armstrong’s work on complex universals.

Which isn't much to go on - and I'm not gonna pay the $25 USD the link says I must fork over to get access to the paper. I wouldn't pay 25 cents coz idea that women are women coz we "have some social feature in common" is bizarre and offensive to me especially when the social feature that supposedly defines and binds us all is not specified. What is the defining social feature we're supposed to have in common? If it's definitive of women, then all women but no men can have it. So what is it supposed to be? Why so coy?

Similarly, I find it hard to believe that each "race" or ethnicity has a defining social feature that everyone within the race possesses but no one outside the does.

This just comes off as sexist and racist tosh to me.

[–]ZveroboyAlina 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Golden rule: If you hear TRA are using some words you are rarely hearing or never heard before, or some weird phrases - check those words or phrases few times, because almost certainly they just appropriated that phrase from other movement or made "a new meaning" to a word and using word with that new meaning.

Huh? I thought essentialism was linked to biology: bio essentialism.

No, it is TRA are misusing words again and calling us bio-essentialists, while we are not. On the other hand they are essentialists.

Here:

Essentialism is the view that every entity has a set of attributes that are necessary to its identity and function. An essence characterizes a substance or a form, in the sense of the forms and ideas in Platonic idealism.

Platonic idealism usually refers to Plato's theory of forms or doctrine of ideas. It holds that only ideas encapsulate the true and essential nature of things, in a way that the physical form cannot.

They believe there is some "women's essense" (or "gender essense" in general) which is so important that it overrides reality and it is main phenomena that is determining who is woman and who is not. And that the "idea of being woman" is essential nature of being a woman, in a way that physical reality is not. Basically their beliefs are what I quoted above, but about gender or sex.

Gender ideology beliefs are the mix of "gender essentialism" and post-modernist ideas that "material world does not trully exist, only your mind exist, words are shaping reality" (that is from where "you are denying my existence" when disagreeing with them or "misgendering is literal violence", because to them existence in post-modernistic sense is being named or called with words, so challenging them is challenging their existence).

[–]soundsituation 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, it is TRA are misusing words again and calling us bio-essentialists, while we are not.

Yes, and I don't know if they truly misunderstand our position or just find it politically advantageous to lump us in with conservatives, who actually are essentialists. I could believe either or both.

[–]ZveroboyAlina 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

In a lot of points gender ideology is similar to beliefs of your typical conservatives, so it is again DARVO and saying that GC are doing what genderists did.

It is common strategy of them: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1HKWYDXEAUaJUV?format=jpg&name=medium

https://twitter.com/DiscordianKitty/status/1391313778483113984

They are describing all the bad that gender ideology is doing and saying "it is GC and TERFs".

Remember that "womXn" situation? When TRA were promoting "womxn" and "latinx" for 5+ years, while feminists were fighting against it. And then at one point they decided that "womxn" is transphobic, and then they backpedaled it, PinkNews, Mermaids and Stonewall started editing their old messages, where they used "womxn" and for public they said it is radfems who were pushing "womxn" to exclude transwomen from word "women".

Gaslighting and transgender movement are synonims.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Duh, I know all this. Which is why I said these ideas are sexist and racist tosh. I dunno why OP posted this here. The name of the sub is "Gender Critical," not "Ignorant About Gender Ideology."

Here's a "golden rule" for you: look up "rhetorical question." Rhetorical questions are not posed out of ignorance, and they should not be taken as a sign that those who use said device are rubes who need to be educated about the matter at hand.

Also, in your attempt to educate me, you missed the main point: the definition OP has brought forward is that "gender realism" = "the view that women have some social feature in common that makes them women." Not a feature or features, which could be biological. But specifically a feature that is both social and singular. Which is why I asked rhetorically

What is the defining social feature we're supposed to have in common? If it's definitive of women, then all women but no men can have it. So what is it supposed to be? Why so coy?