Full Idea
I want to resuscitate an essentialist argument against the view that constitution is identity, of the form 'x is essentially F, y is not essentially F, so x is not y'.
Gist of Idea
Constitution is not identity, as consideration of essential predicates shows
Source
Lynne Rudder Baker (Why Constitution is not Identity [1997], Intro)
Book Reference
-: 'Journal of Philosophy' [-], p.599
A Reaction
The point is that x might be essentially F and y only accidentally F. Thus a statue is essentially so, but a lump if clay is not essentially a statue. Another case where 'necessary' would do instead of 'essentially'.