Obviously in that context we were discussing a physiological conception of sex - the entire point is that Rothblatt denies that while essentializing brain sex. A particularly bizarre and incoherent form of essentialism is still essentialism!
-
-
-
-
Replying to @christapeterso
So, first off, I don't think anyone needs a particularly robust definition of "essentialism" to say that talk of "the sex of a person's soul" is essentialism. I think we all know that if a GC person said that, you'd call it in out in a heartbeat.
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @Moonlitpiglet @christapeterso
But anyway, I understand essentialism (extremely broadly) to be the fixing of a personal characteristic like masculinity, femininity, intelligence, etc. to a biological (or in some cases an otherwise basic) quality like skin color, sex, ethnicity, etc.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @Moonlitpiglet @christapeterso
And what Rothblatt does is essentially go a step beyond fixing sex with certain personality traits, and just *collapses* sex into those traits – but in no other situation would anyone argue that ameliorates the essentialism.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @Moonlitpiglet @christapeterso
Considering race: Everyone agrees that it’s (racist) essentialism to say Chinese people are innately good at math. It would be ridiculous to oppose that and then support the idea that to be Chinese *just was* to be good at math. That’s worse!
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @Moonlitpiglet @christapeterso
I think the same applies here – if it’s essentialism to say that your sex determines your personality, then it’s also essentialism to say that your sex *just is* your personality. The fact that neither are fixed is irrelevant *so long as the two are fixed to each other.*
4 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Moonlitpiglet @christapeterso
Radfem ideology said the most salient feature of sex - indeed, arguably its *only* feature, the one from which all its material relevance to people's lives derives - is who has the babies
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
So, yes, by your terms, if "genderist ideology" is decoupling the definition of "sex" based on "personality" from the question of "who has the babies", it is engaging in the feminist project The fact there are still categories called "men" and "women" afterwards notwithstanding
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes
The kind of essentialism the old school radfems specifically opposed was "You gave a uterus, therefore your job is to have babies, therefore you are warm and nurturing and soft, therefore you are happier in the domestic sphere than you would be in the workplace"
-
-
By torpedoing "You have a uterus, therefore" the whole chain collapses The whole idea of the phrase "a pregnant man" undermines what radfems believed the fundamental basis of patriarchy was
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Does it, though? Not defending essentialist logic of cultural feminism, but does “the phrase ‘a pregnant man’” really topple as much as you’re suggesting here?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
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.