The Pascal’s Wager of Socially Constructed Gender

Trans women are women, full stop, we’re told. “Trans women” needs to have a space in it, we’re told. Why? Because a “trans woman” is just a woman, like any other woman, and “trans” is but a largely irrelevant modifier.

Never mind the fact that “trans” means “transition” which is what this person does from the sex/gender that they allegedly aren’t, to the sex/gender that they allegedly are. And that if in fact a “trans woman” were a woman like everyone else, then it would not be necessary to socially construct, through language and clothes, this alleged woman, and to repeatedly ask others to participate in the construction.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The reason why our language is so policed on this issue (“Don’t misgender! Don’t leave the space out of the word! Don’t use the word as a noun! Stop saying ‘breastfeeding’! Start saying ‘cis’! Repeat the official mantras!”) is because this social construction is a fragile house of cards that requires everyone’s cooperation to exist. This much is openly admitted, even as it’s denied: if a man says he’s a man this week, and a woman next, and a man again next, then we must agree, because there isn’t an underlying reality on the matter that exists apart from a lot of talking and vehement head nodding.

No other identification works this way. I don’t need signs and signals and language and social contracts to recognize cats or dolphins or oranges.

It’s all very much like Pascal’s wager. Nobody takes Pascal’s wager seriously because it contains a big, giant, glaring flaw: you can ask me to believe, but you can’t make me believe. If I’m not a believer then your wager doesn’t work, as it can result only in one of two unsatisfactory outcomes: either I still don’t believe and say so, or I still don’t believe but I say that I do because I’m afraid of this “hell” you speak of.

As with “trans women are women.” Congratulations, transgender activists, you’ve divided the sane world into two camps: those who still don’t believe you’re a woman and say so (sometimes persisting even after you call them the dirty word you made up for them), and those who still don’t believe but say they do because they’re afraid of being publicly shouted down by aggressive males (or perhaps because you’ve convinced them that it’s the way to be nice).

How important is it to extract pretend belief?

It’s very important when your identity requires the cooperation of others to exist, I guess.

Religious zealots and transgender zealots even have the same threat for nonbelievers: die in a fire.

 

4 thoughts on “The Pascal’s Wager of Socially Constructed Gender

  1. To quote from this article on the ‘White Horse Dialogue’: “To use an attribute to show that attributes are not attributes is not as good as using a nonattribute to show that attributes are not attributes. To use a horse to show that a horse is not a horse is not as good as using a non-horse to show that a horse is not a horse, Heaven and earth are one attribute; the ten thousand things are one horse.” The non-woman is argued to be a woman, thus ultimately undermining the social reality of woman as independent biological reproductive existent and force, a phenomenon which still anthropologically translates into the coherent and operable concepts and units of womanhood that have so facilely, in conjunction with empirical scientific advances, materialized into the world’s present human population dynamics and numbers.

    “The ten thousand [transgender etiologies] are one [woman].”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_a_white_horse_is_not_a_horse

    The logical purpose of such illogicality would be natal population control wherever needed: control the logic, control the process, control the empirical outcomes. Traditionally defined biological women and men in their impoverished billions are thus rendered into an amorphous, pullulating blob or chaff called bare life, a human biological terra nullia; what Italian philosopher Agmamben has called ‘Homo Sacer’: the barest human life, the intrinsic organization (and therefore rights) of which is unrecognized and/or unperceived by the advancing liberal ethos of transgender and related non-empirically-based illusory “rights.” Such are the future ghost people who will inherit the lands of the biological ones presently treated or declared as ghosts, inexistents, etrangeres in their natal lands; the same logical legerdemain that argues that the Palestinian people do not and never have existed is operative in the declarations that “the ten thousand things are one horse;” “the ten thousand foreign origins of Israeli Jews is one single origin that surmounts that of the non-existent autochthonous Palestinians;” it is the logic that seeks to make biological women strangers to/within their own bodies and social spaces.

    Like

  2. “… if a man says he’s a man this week, and a woman next, and a man again next, then we must agree, because there isn’t an underlying reality on the matter that exists apart from a lot of talking and vehement head nodding.”

    I don’t have to agree to anything. Especially if it’s coming out of a man’s mouth. No matter what he says he is.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s