'The right side of history' = 'God is on our side'?

[RainWithSunnySpells]

I'm sure that this isn't an original thought (it's probably been suggested before) however once I thought about this it made a lot of sense of the weird phrase TRSoH.

I always wondered how anyone can be on TRSoH in the present. Surely it is the people in the future who will judge that when they look back at the past? Therefore, does TRSoH essentially mean or is an equivalent to 'God is on our side'?

The EHRC certainly thought so, noting that eliding/confusing 'sex' with 'gender' was leaving transmen like Freddy at risk of losing protection against discrimination on the basis of maternity/pregnancy.

I got busy doing something else

The observation I was going to make, that both ‘god is on our side’ and ‘the right side of history’ are used by people who are utterly unable to explain why they believe what they believe seems apposite at this point

now I’ll read the 20 posts after this one and see if you did explain. Hope springs eternal innit?

I was attempting to reply to a post from goddessofthunder from earlier this afternoon but the website won’t allow me to for some reason

crikey

I think this poster could represent Britain in the olympics at missing the point

I just can't work out if it's due to stupidity or an attempt at provocation

Hanlon's razor is always worth bearing in mind.

Yes - both the GC types and hardcore trans activists should be more doubtful

The “point” being?

The thing you missed @GodessOfThunder

i understand it very well. If you don’t google is there for you.

Good for when I’m reading your posts

Yes - both the GC types and hardcore trans activists should be more doubtful well, we'll have to agree to differ.
As a GC type myself, and dependent on fact. rather than ideology, I don't find the quote applicable. What it is applicable to is ideologies.

'Biological essentialism' is just being used as a cheap rhetorical tactic.

you could disprove this by expanding on what you consider to be biological essentialism

for example, do you consider my statement that only women have the kind of bodies that can gestate babies is biological essentialism? if so why?

Having returned to the thread ...you seemed to agree with me that
Sure. A prediction based on that persons beliefs and biases as to what they consider 'moral' now.

So - not necessarily to do with a deity, but it is a faith position.

That's a good definition of biological essentialism upthread. There is no "right side of history". As @GodessOfThunder rightly says, there is no telos. Or as Herzen said, history has no libretto. History is not intending to go anywhere. It just does.

I am reasonably certain that the human race will produce different accounts of sex in the future, and also different accounts of gravity. Theories change as people find out more. But the material point is that whatever the account, women will still gestate the babies and men will still produce sperm (unless we go down the Brave New World road of growing babies in bottles, and controlling their development with alcohol in the blood surrogate). And, with respect to gravity, even if a successful unified field theory is created, things will still fall down.

Everyone is limited by their biology. I can't leap from a tall building and expect to fly. I don't have wings of any sort. I would lose a tug of war with an elephant and a swimming race with an Orca. The GC point of view is that women are, in specific areas, categorically different (that is, women and men constitute distinct classes) in their biology when compared to men. The category is one which arises from reproductive strategies, and the way these strategies require differences in the way the body is constituted. This is not biological essentialism. It is not an attempt to make an inference from biology, but is instead a recognition of an observable material fact.

That's a good definition of biological essentialism upthread.

agreed

it doesn't seem to match the way @GodessOfThunder is using the phrase though, given that she believes gender critical people are proponents of biological essentialism. I'm keen to understand how she defines the term

although as the mother of two entirely different children who have had a very similar upbringing, and who, in hindsight have had certain personality traits from birth, I view this with some scepticism:

The belief that ‘human nature’, an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural ‘essence’ (rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture).

there's definitely some stuff that's innate. Is the 'born this way' view of homosexuality not biological essentialism by this definition?

there's definitely some stuff that's innate. Is the 'born this way' view of homosexuality not biological essentialism by this definition?

I don't think so. I don't know if there's any evidence for that view, which would create a clear categorical difference. It's not something I've looked into. But I can't see how being "born this way" or not affects the rights of gay men and lesbians.

I think biological essentialism is about making value inferences from observed differences. So, women "should" stay at home and be demurely feminine because biology. Men "should" go off and win bread, and be riotously masculine, because biology.

This sums it up nicely.

Also there is a societal version of the Overton window. Each belief that is in fashion will change over time but eventually the "societal Overton window" will get relatively fixed on each particular issue as it becomes historical. Sometimes just within a particular culture and sometimes universally.

For example @PermanentTemporary 's eugenics example, the Holocaust, witch-burning and more. Eventually each culture settles on its ideological belief of what was "right" and what was "wrong".

is that not biological determinism?

Dunno. I'm going to bed. I'll think about it on the train tomorrow. Thanks for the reply!

I'm not trying to be a smart arse. Just genuinely trying to figure out what I'm being accused of (not by you!)

My "Dunno" was genuine. It's something I really don't know. I'm googling stuff, but my working feeling is that "biological essentialism" means that the "essence" of being a woman is contained in the biology (if there is such an essence). I have taken it a step further, and claimed that this biological essence is seen as having normative implications. I just don't know enough about this. There are women on this board who have been thinking about all this for decades. May someone will come along and help.

(Apologies to eveyone for quoting this from page two, this is the first opportunity I have had to reply).

As you didn't get what I was referring to, I'll state it clearly.

We know from the Tavistock data that a large percentage of children that were put on the GnRHa/puberty blocker > cross sex hormones > gender affirming surgery path were autistic, in care or homosexual.

We know that the above pathway sterilises the individual.

Put the two together and it's pretty frightening when you (general you) think about it.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095507933

'biological determinism ... Often used synonymously with biological essentialism; however, the focus of determinism is on causes rather than essences'

'(genetic determinism) The idea that an individual's personality or behaviour is caused by their particular genetic endowment, rather than by social or cultural factors—by nature rather than nurture.'

'biological essentialism

...The belief that ‘human nature’, an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural ‘essence’ (rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture)'

I can't really see the difference, to be honest. But as has been pointed out, this is all beyond me and far cleverer people should surely be able to explain.

I was hoping the person who was bandying it about and happy to be rude to strangers on the internet because they think those people do it would be able to explain

I'm still hopeful <glass half full>