A word on the shifting of language

[FloralBunting]

I've been saying for some time that there is another shift in language coming. You see it in changing definitions of existing words, the invention entirely new pronouns, gaps being mandated between words, etc.

This manipulation has a number of functions. It's meant to destabilise people so they are unsure of the correct terminology. It signals to those who are deep in the cult that they are speaking to another member, and shores up feelings of belonging which is important to maintain the cult's power. It acts as a means to dampen dissent.

So, the narrative used to be that some people feel they were born in the wrong sexed body. It evolved into some people are born in the wrong body. From that we get the notion of 'transition' from one sex to another. This leads on to definitions of 'woman' being challenged because we start with cosmetic surgery, and then there is this curious change to focus more on inner identity so that the male body isn't the sex marker, but the 'female' feelings are. Transsexual goes because it mentions sex. Transgender comes into favour instead etc.

So the current situation is that 'trans women were never men, they have always been women' which obviously completely erases women as a distinct biological category.

Now, I predicted that the next move would be the elimination of the word 'trans' because that word drives a rather large truck through the idea that something has always been something else. There is no need to 'transition' if someone has always been a woman.

But I questioned how they would be able to jettison the word as it now has a kind of talismanic quality. I should have guessed that they will just change the definition. I was reading this Twitter thread earlier, and this tweet I've linked jumped out at me.

twitter.com/LennartVM/status/1090426165804843013?s=20

I'm putting all this here because I think language has been a key element of how the ideology has gained traction (Well, it's how any idea gains traction traction) and it's genuinely empowering when people can start to see for themselves how the manipulation works.

I get what you are saying. Discourse always changes over time as ideas evolve. More recently: 'bitch' (negative / misogynistic/ insulting) to 'hanging with my bitches' (camaraderie / fun).

As of this week: 'I support women and cis women' t-shirts.

No! I am not and never will be cis anything

I think that's a good analysis Floral.

I've noticed, though, that it's trans when it suits them and just woman other times depending on which one gives them the power in any given situation.

It keeps everyone else on the back foot too.

Because of that I think trans as a term will be sticking around - we need to know who's the most oppressed and important after all...

I couldn't see anywhere that the guy who says 'trans isn't short for transitioning' says what he thinks it should be defined as.
So... 'transwoman' is 'UndefinedAdjective-UndefinedNoun' ?

The stonewall glossary says:
'TRANS
An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.
Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.'
... frankly, that's not much of an improvement. But, it demonstrates that trans really doesn't mean 'transitioning' any more - it can mean whatever the heck you want it to, it seems. I think long-term, this is shooting themselves in the foot, because the majority of people simply won't ever buy the notion that transwomen are, let alone always have been, women. 'Trans' will become an increasingly devalued term.

In other lexical news, 'bigot' now seems to mean 'person who doesn't agree with me who I therefore won't tolerate' rather than 'a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.'

Language is absolutely essential and we can't give any ground on this

The use of words, when they are used in a way that's far removed from how the general public understand them, do create a kind of slang.
But the good thing about slang is it's wide open to ridicule.
There are no people involved, no victims claiming suicidality, no-one to tell you off for mocking them.†
Which is why the names of the three thousand genders get mocked mercilessly. I can laugh at the concept of aerogender (no not bubbly) or oneirogender because they are bullshit.
So the more they change language, so long as we point it out every time, the better, AFAIC.

† Note: I don't want to mock or bully anyone, that should be obvious but screenshot cowboys will misrepresent

Thanks for the response.

FlyingOink, I don't disagree, but you have to be aware of the shifts, which is why I started this thread - perhaps it might be useful to have record of subtle changes and the impact that has?

And yes, Errol I do agree that trans is a terrifically useful word to the ideology now and won't be jettisoned, I was just very curious to see how it would be retained and the tweet I posted was the first thing I've seen that gives a clear indication.

Oops, sorry, second comment was to terryleather, not Errol, although Errol makes a good point about no clear definition given - but that's half the game, really, the retrospective definitions.

perhaps it might be useful to have record of subtle changes and the impact that has
Totally agree. Like the threads on biased sources, it's more powerful when it's collated. Good thread idea.

V interesting op. I looked at the twitter page of the woman, Emma, on that thread who is arguing that transwomen were never male (🙄) , her pinned tweet is a little joke about her toddler being a MRA. Oh the irony and lack of self awareness. The idiocy .

I'm sure there was a male describing themselves recently as a woman with a trans history or something like that, can't quite remember and I was struck by the placing of woman first so that's what sticks in your mind - so much sly manipulation of language.

I agree with Ode, I'm not prepared to give ground on language even though it makes discussion on here so tricky at times.

Yes, there was, Terry. The most obvious and logical reading of 'woman with a trans history ' would be a female who'd become a transman (or one if the more nebulous categories under the trans umbrella') who was now a 'detransitioner', back to identifying as a woman again.

Hacsi Horvath addressed this issue a bit on Monday:

"Don't play along with it. I don't play along," Horvath said when asked by The Christian Post about how people on the political right and left might respond effectively together to the rapid spread of gender identity ideology in a polarized political climate.

"I don't say transwoman, I don't say she, her [when speaking about a male]. I don't care if it hurts their feelings. This is reality and it gaslights everybody else. And it gaslights yourself, and you begin to internalize it."
www.christianpost.com/news/to-resist-gender-transitioning-of-kids-be-willing-to-lose-friends-activists-say.html

I thought that was an interesting point about using the compelled language causing people to internalize the compelled thought/perception.

I'm sure there was a male describing themselves recently as a woman with a trans history or something like that, can't quite remember and I was struck by the placing of woman first so that's what sticks in your mind - so much sly manipulation of language.

Yes, terryleather, that's one of the clues that made me think that getting rid of trans altogether might be on the cards. As far as I can tell, one of the goals is to completely appropriate the word woman. Different people have different motivations for that, but I think it's a shared goal.

Hence you have the 'joke' tweet by Eli something that someone might be able to link to where they are wearing a t-shirt that reads 'women and cis women'.

Women are relegated to a subcategory within their own sex class and 'transwomen' are so much better. You see it a lot in exchanges where AWAs talk about a transperson as 'more of a woman than you'll ever be'- as though 'woman' is a value judgement rather than a simple description of a sex class.

At base, that's simple sexism. But it's also a very useful tool to control anyone if you can get them to use words in a way that is useful to you.

I agree Errol that's how I'd interpret woman with a trans history, but as I said it's sly manipulation.

terry has it

Its a sly manipulation of language

And some people just make it up as they go along!! Literally

Then pretend its always been the case

Ive got some made up words for them as well but i might get deleted

Oh and 'woman and cis woman' can fuck right off'

And its not happening to men so the misogynistic twunts can do one

This is reality

Yes. Sadly this is where I've reached now. If you go along with any of it, you've just opened the door to be shoved to go along with all of it, and it's pushed further into the depths of batshittery every day where it's actively damaging to women, girls, safeguarding, the law and society. These things matter more than hurt feelings.

It kind of feeds in to a general sense of the pushing of a Cultural Revolution 2.0.

This odd article by Ian Jack feeds into it - his 'young friend' deeming what should and shouldn't be thrown off the White Cliffs - but, to link back to the OP, it's not limited to nostalgia and heritage, it's also common and established definitions that are to be wiped away in favour of some sort of brave new SJW world.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/03/british-icons-white-cliffs-nuclear-monarchy

I don't believe most of them even have hurt feelings anyway. It's just weaponised offence. The real goal, which they do a piss poor job of hiding, is to attack and subjugate women.

You see it a lot in exchanges where AWAs talk about a transperson as 'more of a woman than you'll ever be'- as though 'woman' is a value judgement rather than a simple description of a sex class.

That's a great way of putting it Floral !

Maybe woman is a value judgement for them in some ways as it can never be based on actual reality for those males identifying as women.

Are some of these males judging themselves as lesser in some way and therefore should be in the category of woman by their own sexist logic while a cohort of them get of on that subordinate position at the same time - being a "beta-male cuck" as some would nastily put it, doesn't make you a woman ffs.

And as Rufus says cis can fuck the fuck off.

I think it’s worth emphasizing that the use of feminine pronouns to refer to ‘transwomen’ not only confuses a GC argument – it positively affirms the trans argument.

I don't believe most of them even have hurt feelings anyway. It's just weaponised offence. The real goal, which they do a piss poor job of hiding, is to attack and subjugate women.

Agreed Ova

Another excuse to resurrect my favourite Stephen Fry quote (from 2005 - man was ahead of his time):

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

Free I love that quote. I don't think I have ever said that I have been offended by something that has been said to me directly because it has always sounded entitled. Mr. Fry perfectly sums it up!

And the unnatural use of ‘they’ suggests a lack of confidence in the GC position and a fear of challenging it head-on.

I think that TRA claims that ‘misgendering’ is psychologically damaging to trans people is a cover: they know that the honest use of language would expose the weakness of their position.