Dominant woman and transexual
We also all insist that it’s politically essential to retain a clear conceptual differentiation between males and females, in order to continue to be able to name and refer to sex-based patterns of oppression, and harmful sociocultural stereotypes about the ‘right’ ways for males and females respectively to be.Our aim here is not to summarise our positive arguments for these conclusions.In our work, some of us argue that women, by definition, are adult human females.On this view, since no trans woman is an adult human female, no trans woman is correctly categorised as a woman.So to call the view that some of us hold ‘biological essentialism’ is a misnomer.Moreover, it is a misnomer apparently rhetorically designed to draw some of the harsh criticism which appears in progressive circles about biological essentialism, in the true sense, onto the view that women, definitionally, are adult human females.
Philosophers don’t assess conclusions on their own; they assess conclusions in the context of premises allegedly leading to those conclusions.
Our first section covers recurrent fallacious arguments.
In a second section, we consider and reject some analogies that have been brought against our position to date, which we consider to be poor.
Biological essentialism is a position about whether certain traits of women are biologically produced by sex category membership.
Womanhood itself is not a genetic ‘trait’ and no-one on either side of the dispute thinks it is conceivably biologically produced in the way that, arguably, emotional intelligence or maternal instinct is supposed to be.