Speech acts
There are mantras. This is one of the mantras.
Trans women are women. I am a woman because I say I am. There’s no getting rid of trans women. If you don’t like it? There’s nothing you can do about it. History isn’t going backwards sorry
— shon faye. (@shonfaye) July 25, 2018
“I am a woman because I say I am.” It’s supposed to be, and often is, a conversation-ender. But that seems to be not so much because it’s convincing or persuasive (let alone a good argument) but because it’s a mantra. Repetition makes it true and shouting makes it mandatory – something like that. I googled the sentence in quotation marks and got about 96,600 results, so definitely a mantra.
But it’s strange that it is when it seems so obviously not true. There are some “because I say I am”s that work that way – like “I say I am quitting” for instance. Performative speech, as a linguist friend pointed out. If I say I quit, I resign, I refuse, I object, then that works. “I quit because I say I quit” makes sense. “I apologize” is another, though it’s possible to say it in such a way that it self-undermines. But it’s not the case that saying “I am a _____” necessarily makes me that ______. I could say I’m a government official who has the authority to fire Trump from the presidency, but it wouldn’t get me anywhere, not even if I went to DC and said it to John Kelly.
Humans aren’t magic. We can’t just say things into existence. We can perform certain things with words, certainly, but there are limits. We can’t change material reality just by saying “I am.”
(From “thesquarecomics”)
Very apt.
Another usually-meaningless mantra comes to mind here: intent is not magic. Maybe the two of them can duel?
Heh, true. Intent is not magic except when it is you disgusting TERF.
I know I posted this elsewhere, but Heather Brunskell-Evans’ summation of much of this, let’s call it a debate, is applicable here as well: feminism addresses biology as innate, and gender as a social construct. Trans*-ism addresses gender as innate, and biology as a social construct. That latter perspective explains, to me, ” I am ____ because I say I am.”
This sounds like a fun game. Can I play?
I am trans. Because I say I am.
Oh, I’m not the kind of trans person whose gender identity doesn’t matter their socially presumed gender. I’m not the kind of trans person who faces discrimination or hostility.
You see, to me, “trans” means “to transcend,” and I am so awesome that I transcend society’s petty notions of gender.
Ergo, I am trans. If you “traditional trans people” don’t like it, and feel that I’m appropriating or trivializing your struggles, well, tough. History isn’t going backwards, sorry not sorry.
Biology as a social construct? How does that argument go? It definitely looks like a physical construct, recognisable as such by the reality-based community, to me.
It might just be a case of observation bias on my part, but it always seems to me that the most vocal and demanding transwomen are also the ones who look most like blokes in dresses and make-up.
And Trump is a Great Statesman and Brilliantly Successful (and stable) Genius.
I mean, he SAYS he is…
Oh, that’s a big thing nowadays. Some people have mistaken the idea that biology is filtered through our societal expectations (choice of research topics, interpretation of data, etc) to the idea that biology is just another way of believing, and no more “true” than any other belief – like, Christianity is true for Christians, Islam is true for Muslims, and Biology is true for Biologists. Everyone else can reject it if they like. But no one, absolutely no one, may reject the idea that men can become women just by saying “I’m a woman”.
Yep. A small but tasteful book called Why Truth Matters discusses that big thing.
The person in the picture looks like a woman.
She says she is a trans woman and therefore she is a woman.
What is the issue here?
Am I missing some thing that is obvious to everybody here?
#12; just some basic biology and the fact that one’s psychological image of oneself does not alter the physical reality. If this person is a transwoman, fine, but transwoman is different to woman and no amount of wishful thinking and foot-stamping is going to change that simple fact.
iknklast @ #10: Additionally, the argument is made that, since gender is innate, if a person proclaims “I am a woman,” and is confirmed by their chosen community to be a woman, then that person’s genitalia are those of a woman. Ergo, since a lesbian is attracted to women, that means that a lesbian ought to be fine with the genitalia of said person in sexual relations, since that person is a woman. That’s kind of a bare bones summation again, but it is part of the narrative and, again, um, debate.
She means “woman” in all aspects, in all contexts, including biological. The mantra, and it’s accompanying slur, “TERF” are meant to shut down even important discussions about self-identifying and access to single-sex spaces, as well as lesbian identity and the literal erasure of women (adult females).
We’re now in shark-jumping while riding a shark territory.
clamboy*, I have seen it stated that transwomen do not have male genitalia, they absolutely have a vagina, a uterus, ovaries, the works. But it goes further; they need access to women’s health facilities (gynecology, contraceptives, sanitary products, etc), because they are women, dagnammit. None of this was said metaphorically or hypothetically, it was said as a statement of fact, because saying ‘I am a woman’ is enough to magically change a person’s physiology in such a drastic and impossible way.
*I’m sorry, but the devil in me couldn’t help but notice that your ‘nym could easily be a term for a transwoman, given the labia-based slang meaning of ‘clam’.
Sorry, but I couldn’t help thinking the notion that transgender people have the magical power to become something they’re not, and that such power could be used to turn themselves into Trump’s boss and fire him, sounds like a great South Park episode…
Acolyte of Sagan @ 16 – my ‘nym has nothing to do with anatomy, Scientology, or anything esoteric, sexual, biological, abstract, etc. It’s simply a nickname from a friend, bestowed upon me when she found out where I grew up.
Great book. Written by someone I’ve heard of, right? ;-)
Think it should be required reading for everyone. I’ve ordered a copy for our school library.
Quahog?
To who commented @ #20 – Let me check the next time I say something that involves that which follows on the heels of Q, and is followed by S.
A mantra huh. I’ve got a mantra for the self identifiers: “Extrordinary claims require extrodinary evidence”. So let’s see your the results of your medical exam.