Biological essentialism, in the context of gender differences, refers to a belief that men and women are cognitively & psychologically distinct. There is a female nature & a male nature. Whereas, in reality, we are strongly overlapping populations with much individual variation. https://twitter.com/ashishkjames99/status/999737040324345857 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
I think ‘essentialism’ is a bad concept myself, in that it smuggles in an assumption that there is nothing beyond immediate appearance; that is the ‘ism’ is a pejorative attached to the essence/appearance distinction. (Making no claims about gender here.)
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
My fault, I’m sure. IMHO: Mostly the arguments against biological essentialism as explanation for gender difference are good. But...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JamesHeartfield @HPluckrose
... the concept of essentialism is bad. All reason is about moving from appearance to essence (with caveats). I.e. not taking first impressions uncritically. Deconstructionists (and others) argue this is a false move, which they call ‘essentialism’.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JamesHeartfield @HPluckrose
To call it essentialism*ism* is not a neutral description but a pejorative. It is saying that scientific reasoning is delusional, that it is not possible to move beyond immediate appearance. The term ‘essentialism’ smuggles in a Pomo case against scientific method.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JamesHeartfield
It can and often is used to make that argument but must it be? What would you call the argument that biology produces a male nature - assertive, analytical, reasoning - and a female nature - agreeable, intuitive, emotional.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Individuals of the human species are the natural substrate of society, but a social order is of another dimension to animal behaviour. You can no more reduce society to biology than you could reduce biology to chemistry - not without setting aside just what you are explaining.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JamesHeartfield
Yes, I know that but what do we call people who say we can if not 'biological essentialists?' Biological determinists? Is there a word for people who believe biology produces a distinctly male and a distinctly female nature?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Biological determinists. Sociological illiterates. Victims of a category error. The reasoning is mostly circular btw. Nobody ever predicted social behaviour by reasoning from nature. They only retrospectively attribute trends to biology.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You have to notice behavioural differences first, yes, before you can look for causes in hormone levels or brains.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.