When Meta met Meta
Ah good, the move from stupid deepity to even stupider deepity.
Abstract
Recently, the concept of “gender identity” has enjoyed a great deal of attention in gender metaphysics. This seems to be motivated by the goal of creating trans-inclusive theory, by explaining trans people’s genders.
Wait, slow down. There’s such a thing as “gender metaphysics”? I mean, such a solid established thing that it makes sense to talk of a great deal of attention in gender metaphysics? There really are lots of people, or at least some people, paying a great deal of attention to the concept of genner idenniny in genner metaphysics?
Not that I can find, but hey, maybe they’re all in bunkers.
In this paper, we aim to unmotivate this project. Notions of “gender identity” serve important pragmatic purposes for trans people, such as satisfying the curiosity of non-trans people, and, relatedly, securing our access to important goods like legal rights and medical care.
Hahahaha as if those things are just minor ruffles on the surface of the water as opposed to being the whole point.
Guess what: genner idenniny is meaningless and worthless without an admiring/dissenting audience. The whole point of luxury genner is to draw attention to oneself. It’s a persona, a costume, a moment on the stage. What these deep thinkers disdainfully call “satisfying the curiosity of non-trans people” is the reward of claiming to have a luxury idenniny. The putative curiosity of non-trans people is what gets the people of idenniny out of bed in the morning.
Moreover, we argue that trans people primarily use “gender identity” to explain ourselves to non-trans people, rather than to discuss ourselves among ourselves.
But explaining yourselves to non-trans people is not a thing apart but your whole existence, to coin a phrase. Showing off your magical selves to an admiring world is the meaning and purpose of trans. Call it trans metaphysics if you like.
It’s a rather staggering thing to admit that the whole idea is just the public facade—just some bullshit you use to mystify the normies. I mean … Wow.
The funny thing is that these people (gender ideologues, Queer Theorists, Critical Theorists, etc.) do this kind of thing all the time. In their literature, they don’t hesitate at all to say exactly what they believe and intend and do. Since they’re usually the only ones who read said literature, no one seems to notice.
“Gender identity” is just the form they take in the plane of existence that the unenlightened inhabit.
“How dreary – to be – Somebody! How public – like a Frog –. To tell one’s name – the livelong June –. To an admiring Bog!” – Emily Dickinson
Also from the abstract:
I’m taking this as a victory. In fact, I’m overjoyed at reading something like this. Let’s hope this bit catches on.
I want to know how “Gender Identity” differs from being a “Furry,” and how it is that either one of these differ from someone just taking cosplay to a frightening extreme. Why does only one of these
hobbiesdisorders succeed at claiming so many “rights,” while demanding absolutely all of our attention? Why is the theft of women’s rights and safety become a government enforced, audience participation activity, while Pup play, and dressing up as Elrond, Draco Malfoy, or Data don’t?YNnB:
I’m assuming you’re referring to transgender identities specifically – the only commonality between the two is that they involve people disguising themselves, sometimes but not always for sexual purposes. Gender identity is a kind of weird belief system, while being a “furry” is not.
Being a furry does not involve any particular belief in vague, subjective, immaterial essences around which society should be heavily structured for no clear reason and to the detriment of actually important material characteristics. It’s not underlined by a bizarre ideology rooted in sexist (nor, for that matter, “speciesist”) stereotypes. Furries don’t claim* that they were born in the wrong species, that they should be treated exactly like the non-human animals they say they are, and that humans being humans is colonialist nonsense that must be rejected; neither is anyone attempting to redefine humanhood, saying that non-furries have souls that match their human bodies and are privileged for being treated accordingly.
I could get into serious trouble for declaring that I don’t have a gender identity, but nobody ever will get mad at me for saying I don’t have a deep-seated feeling that I was meant to be born a human, because the existence of furries doesn’t depend on such ideas.
*Well, maybe some happen to, but furries don’t do so as a group.
My translation: Uh oh, the gig is up. Too many people have noticed that “gender identity” is too nebulous a concept to stand up to serious scrutiny. Let’s use some academic-sounding hoo hah to pretend we never really meant it.
Lady M, that would be coming full-circle. The whole thing started as academic-sounding Po-Mo bafflegab that was never meant to be taking seriously. It was all a game of ‘what if’ wrapped up in pretentious jargon.