Essence

Whatever loses its goodness ceases to be. Thus wicked men cease to be what they were; but the appearance of their human bodies, which they keep, shows that they once were men. To give oneself to evil, therefore, is to lose one's human essence. Just as virtue can raise a person above ordinary human nature, so vice lowers those whom it has seduced from the condition of men beneath human nature. For this reason, anyone whom you find transformed by vice cannot be counted a man. Although vicious men keep the appearance of their human bodies, they are nevertheless changed into beasts as far as the essence of their souls is concerned."

Boethius, The Emboldenment of Philosophy, 523 CE

Essentially, if you are reading this, you are human. Dogs, kangaroos and rattle snakes are not in the habit of sitting down to read a blog on the internet. Your pet dog may be, to you, more human than most of the people you know, yet it remains a dog - an animal you just happen to measure favourably in human terms, despite it being essentially different.
Whatever the extent of your affection for your pet, it is indisputable that, whatever species it may be, however ‘human’ it may seem, it is not human. There is an obvious essential difference between humans and all other animals.
Is there, however, an essential difference between males and females?
It is, to my mind, a fair question when thinking about an episode entitled ‘Essence’, in which we have human looking beings running around, wreaking all sorts of havoc.
With that in mind, it would seem, there are at least 13 real differences between male and female brains. Take that as seriously as you please. Maybe it should be 50 real differences between men & women. Of course, we shouldn’t ignore the psychological differences between men and women. Though, in our scientific approach to the subject, we should probably focus on the key differences between male and female. As a Guardian reader, I cannot neglect to mention the REAL differences.
Essentialism is scary stuff. If we are essentially male and female, those who transition from one to the other become suspect. Don’t they?
If males are essentially more geared towards Mathematics than females, well, that explains why there are so many more men doing science than women – doesn’t it?
Essentialism has certainly been employed to support such arguments.
And, of course, if there is a way of rationalizing what we don’t want to hear, well then, let’s just say that approach isn’t acceptable anymore. Studying Literature at University through the late 90s into the early 2000s, one approached the idea of essentialism with great trepidation.
Mind you, a Jungian reading of a text would get you openly ridiculed in seminar and a B grade at best on your essay. It wasn’t until I added a Freudian element to my essay on Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ that I achieved an A grade. Now, I am well aware of my abilities as a writer, so I was quite confident that there was no qualitative difference between the one essay and another. It was solely a matter of one approach being acceptable and the other not.
Essentially, I was academically sound. Politically, less so.
Which, when you think about it, is pretty weird. Essentialism is either scientifically supportable or it isn’t – irrespective of politics.
Would it be so hard for us to accept that essentially there are differences between males and females, but, due to the genius of modern science, even these differences can be surmounted?
Whether I agree with transgenderism or not is completely irrelevant. I am not the person involved, I have no way of understanding what is experienced by those who are, and it is not for me to judge another person’s life choices – so long as they are not overtly harmful to others.
Yet, I agree fully with Boethius.
A person who transitions between male and female, or vice versa, does not cease to be human. They do not take on merely the appearance of the human for they have done nothing to diminish their humanity. The same goes for the whole alphabet of alternative lifestyles. Until, that is, your lifestyle choices impinges upon others.
Of course, if you are my son and you decide that you’d prefer to be my daughter, that is going to impinge upon me and how I understand the world and what it means to be human. But questioning what it means to be human is a good thing and, even if it must be thrust upon me, coming to see that we are more than my limited understanding is ultimately a good thing. You may have to accept that I may never agree with your choices, but that is ‘Small Potatoes’ compared to what you may be asking me to accept. You don't need my acceptance; you need my understanding.
I don't need to accept your choices in order to be able to live with them. A life-long Liverpool supporter, I live with supporters of Man Utd and never accept their choices. I understand them, though, and, as Robert Frost said, "that has made all the difference".
Just don't make the mistake of thinking that you are entitled to my acceptance. You are not. You have a right to understanding and only as much right to acceptance as I am able to give.
Asking me to blithely accept that anyone from Africa comes from a ‘shithole’ country, now that is what I call impinging upon me to the extent that I have to wonder whether you are, in fact, essentially human, in the Boethian sense.