Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Byrne's argument fails because it assumes without argument that there is a single, universal category of woman.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Byrne assumes the existence of a single, universal category of woman.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This assumption is made without argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The existence of a single universal category of woman has been extensively discussed and critiqued by feminist philosophers and theorists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's family resemblance concept demonstrates that categories can be coherent without sharing a single essential property across all members.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Byrne's argument requires essentialism about womanhood to generate determinate membership conditions, but essentialism about gender is philosophically untenable given intersectionality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a prior argument for why gender categories must be essentialist rather than family-resemblance-based, Byrne's universal category assumption is undefended.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Haslanger's ameliorative analysis shows 'woman' is a social position defined by oppression, not a natural kind with universal membership conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'woman' picks out a social position rather than a natural kind, any argument requiring a fixed universal category commits a category error.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.