The Incoherence of Gender Ideology - Quillette

[WhatyoutalkingaboutWillis]

This really is the most succinct, coherent piece of writing on this subject I've come across.

Enjoy!

quillette.com/2021/08/04/the-incoherence-of-gender-ideology/?fbclid=IwAR3oLz0iaZ11-xDaNAKuz-GTfb-CdvxavRNhRFM2X8PtdNnxyqIU-vj-q9c

Women's language being erased by a top down hierarchical movement =/= the language women use is evolving.

@Thelnebriati

Women's language being erased by a top down hierarchical movement =/= the language women use is evolving.

What is it called in history when a dominant force suppresses the language of a people that they oppress?

There is a technical term that doesn't come to mind at present.

Cultural genocide?

''Though the precise definition of cultural genocide remains contested, the Armenian Genocide Museum defines it as "acts and measures undertaken to destroy nations' or ethnic groups' culture through spiritual, national, and cultural destruction."''

''The legal definition of genocide is unspecific about the exact way in which genocide is committed, only stating that it is destruction with the intent to destroy a racial, religious, ethnic or national group.

...cultural genocide involves the eradication and destruction of cultural artifacts, such as books, artworks, and structures, as well as the suppression of cultural activities that do not conform to the destroyer's notion of what is appropriate.

Among many other potential reasons, cultural genocide may be committed... as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing in order to remove the evidence of a people from a specific locale or history''

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide

@Thelnebriati

Cultural genocide?

I don't think it's that although it's an interesting perspective. In my mind, it's linked to the discussion of writers like Chinua Achebe.

I had something like this discussion in mind as well plus various countries that don't support the use of indigenous languages within their key systems:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/23/the-long-struggle-for-the-right-to-speak-the-welsh-and-irish-languages

Riffing off the cultural genocide - would current circumstances be a form of cultural democide (if supported by government and judiciary)? Or is there any hope for a logical term to describe an oppressed yet magically powerful class that suppresses the language of an oppressed class that is depicted by them as an oppressor class?

the pronoun 'she' has been used to refer to adult human males

But only because they see it as meaning "female". If it didn't have this meaning for them, they wouldn't insist on it. It's the female meaning that they want, not the nice "sh" sound.

This is obviously true just looking at trans males in other countries - they all want to be whatever the local words and pronouns for "adult human female" is. The fixed meaning is what's being latched onto, in an attempt to steal it.

suggestionsplease1 I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong

You are wrong. But I do not have the time to explain in detail -- it goes too far back, I am afraid.

Probably my fault for engaging as I did in the first place. Mea culpa ! You probably think I am unfair leaving you like this. Maybe I am; apologies, anyway.

Perhaps, if you want to get to grips with this, you might start by looking again at your thought, '... didn't Wittgenstein argue that sensations are private?' That looks decidedly un-Wittgensteinian, but anyway, try to find out for yourself; did he or not argue so?

( Philosophical Investigations, paras 244-271 is a good place to start, 'How do words refer to sensations? ...' etc. But also check out 302 and 350, which I referenced earlier wrt Malcolm's 'external' pla ... There is much more. A good intro/guide? Marie McGinn's 'Routledge Guide' is about the best imo: philpapers.org/rec/MCGTRG-2. Do not bother with any postmodern or poststructuralist stuff those people misconstrue poor old Ludwig something chronic as well as ... oh, lots of other things.)

You ask further, I notice, 'Did you not think his [sc. the OP's quoted author] argument rested on a false premise; that language is fixed and does not evolve?' -- No, I do not think so. Not at all. Read it again; you have severely misunderstood.

I wish I had time to help you more with this, but really to begin with you just need to read and think a bit more carefully. Sorry!

That is a bit of a cop out @9toenails. But fair does. You have not explained in the slightest what the problem is with my argument that there is a false premise (and therefore of course a false conclusion) in the article linked to by the OP.

It seems you would prefer to pretend you have already demonstrated some intellectual superiority and use that as a smokescreen to cover the fact that, actually, a pretty basic error of reasoning was made by the author of that article, which I am sure you are actually aware of.

@NecessaryScene

the pronoun 'she' has been used to refer to adult human males

But only because they see it as meaning "female". If it didn't have this meaning for them, they wouldn't insist on it. It's the female meaning that they want, not the nice "sh" sound.

This is obviously true just looking at trans males in other countries - they all want to be whatever the local words and pronouns for "adult human female" is. The fixed meaning is what's being latched onto, in an attempt to steal it.

Yes, because they see it as meaning female. But the fact is that the word 'she' is being used to refer to adult human males, with male genitals, and this is widely recognised and understood by the public.

The author's argument is dependent on language, especially some words like male, female, he, she - being fixed. So 'she' can only ever refer to adult human female with female genitals and he is saying all discussion of transgender issues are unintelligible because of this.

However, he is not the creator of human language, and he can not determine the parameters for use - it is not within his power to designate it fixed. And it clearly isn't fixed. Language use can evolve organically, and we have real world application of the word 'she' being used to refer to adult human males already - and that is intelligible to us. We have a precedent for it's use in an alternative way to the designation 'adult human female', which means further alternative intelligible applications are possible, for eg. in transgender discussions.

Language being fixed isn't really relevant here because he's talking about within the context of a particular argument. It's not a question about development or changes in language.

There are people who would say that language is totally subjective and there is no shared meaning in it at all, but the only conclusion there is that it's not possible to make rational arguments at all.

And even so - the usage of the word "she" for men that we are seeing is completely dependent on the fact that we all know that the meaning of the word excludes males. The speaker has to purposefully make a miscategorisation, otherwise both the primary meaning (relating to a woman), and the usage for the male person, both become completely meaningless.

It's only possible because we are able to manipulate language due to a meta-knowledge that we can use it in a way that is opposite to the real meaning, and do so without losing that meaning.

If "woman" didn't refer to female people, or "she" to female people, there would be no desire to use it as a gender marker.

So destroying that link would be a complete own-goal, particularly for anyone who actually suffered from dysphoria.

The author's argument is dependent on language, especially some words like male, female, he, she - being fixed.

No it isn't. You haven't understood it, or are pretending not to. It's dependent on it being consistent within a specific context.

What it's pointing out is the problem with using a term to mean one thing in paragraph 3, then a different thing in paragraph 5.

Or working out an argument (or law) with a term meaning one thing, then redefining it and assuming the argument or law still makes sense using the same word with a different meaning.

But only because they see it as meaning "female".

Indeed. It is at best "women plus honorary males that are treated like women". It takes its meaning and appeal for males from the fact that it's used to address females.

Frankly, I think it's really fucking cheeky to make entitled demands on someone's time who has clearly already taken the time to explain a concept to you, and try and goad them back to it by repeating your refuted assertions.

But the fact is that the word 'she' is being used to refer to adult human males, with male genitals, and this is widely recognised and understood by the public.

That the public understands and recognises that some people incorrectly use she to refer to males to reflect their personal beliefs does not negate the authors claim that the meanings of these indexicals remains fixed for the vast majority of people.

What you are claiming, suggestionsplease1 is that the small number of people who manifest their belief in the doctrine of gender identity by incorrectly using third person pronouns have the power to change those fixed meanings for every person of the planet, regardless of the restraints of logic, conceptual consistency and interrelatedness that language is subject to and despite the fact that they don't share that belief.

Yours is a bold claim, you're entitled to make it of course. Just as I can reject it, pointing particularly to the fact that the cognitive load imposed on people forced to use pronouns incorrectly is proof (if we needed any) that this isn't natural language change.

It's not the evolution of language, it's not an organic change, it's an abuse of language. It's language as an instrument of totalitarianism.

Oh now don't get me wrong, given enough time such language abuse can indeed change language. I lived through it. You'd be surprised how different the language of East Germans remains to this day, much as I am always surprised to learn that words that I grew up with hold no meaning whatsoever to West Germans. 40 years of imposing those words on the people allows you to indoctrinate at least two generations of children. That's long enough to for it to work.

What neither East nor West Germans call it today though is evolution of language, organic or natural. And neither is this.

@SmokedDuck

Language being fixed isn't really relevant here because he's talking about within the context of a particular argument. It's not a question about development or changes in language.

There are people who would say that language is totally subjective and there is no shared meaning in it at all, but the only conclusion there is that it's not possible to make rational arguments at all.

Language being fixed is more than relevant - it is absolutely central to this author's argument. Have a look at the quotes that I have put in this thread which demonstrate the author's dependence on this. The whole written piece depends on this understanding.

He is applying his argumentation to the real world and has arrived at an incorrect conclusion. Sure, if it was a little game he was playing and he got to decide all the parameters of a given language he was using, he could certainly consider his conclusions valid. But he's not doing that, he's applying them to the real world, and the real world has other applications of language.

@NecessaryScene

The author's argument is dependent on language, especially some words like male, female, he, she - being fixed.

No it isn't. You haven't understood it, or are pretending not to. It's dependent on it being consistent within a specific context.

What it's pointing out is the problem with using a term to mean one thing in paragraph 3, then a different thing in paragraph 5.

Or working out an argument (or law) with a term meaning one thing, then redefining it and assuming the argument or law still makes sense using the same word with a different meaning.

Certainly this was touched on in the article - for eg. the considerations about Ellen/Elliot Paige. And that is an interesting additional question.

But it does not detract from his central premise being flawed.

@CharlieParley

But the fact is that the word 'she' is being used to refer to adult human males, with male genitals, and this is widely recognised and understood by the public.

That the public understands and recognises that some people incorrectly use she to refer to males to reflect their personal beliefs does not negate the authors claim that the meanings of these indexicals remains fixed for the vast majority of people.

What you are claiming, suggestionsplease1 is that the small number of people who manifest their belief in the doctrine of gender identity by incorrectly using third person pronouns have the power to change those fixed meanings for every person of the planet, regardless of the restraints of logic, conceptual consistency and interrelatedness that language is subject to and despite the fact that they don't share that belief.

Yours is a bold claim, you're entitled to make it of course. Just as I can reject it, pointing particularly to the fact that the cognitive load imposed on people forced to use pronouns incorrectly is proof (if we needed any) that this isn't natural language change.

It's not the evolution of language, it's not an organic change, it's an abuse of language. It's language as an instrument of totalitarianism.

Oh now don't get me wrong, given enough time such language abuse can indeed change language. I lived through it. You'd be surprised how different the language of East Germans remains to this day, much as I am always surprised to learn that words that I grew up with hold no meaning whatsoever to West Germans. 40 years of imposing those words on the people allows you to indoctrinate at least two generations of children. That's long enough to for it to work.

What neither East nor West Germans call it today though is evolution of language, organic or natural. And neither is this.

I don't know that this can be described as an 'abuse' of language in either of the possible applications of the word.

Language is not a feeling entity that is capable of experiencing abuse, neither is there any fixed authority of language whose rights to it can be run roughshod over / abused.

Language reflects the present understanding of populations at the point in time they use it and it is subject to shift and of course it can be a battleground.

I understand your general sentiment, but of course the sentiment one has towards an argument or the consequences of an argument does not impact the validity of the argument.

Oh dear. You have misunderstood. It's not language feeling abused. I'm a linguist but much as I love language and the study of language, I wouldn't dream of anthropomorphising it.

As I explained in my comment, it's language being abused by people espousing a particular set of beliefs. Just as the communist government did in East Germany by inhibiting and prohibiting the use of certain words, such as those around Christmas for instance and instead inventing and then imposing new words for those Christmas-related things.

When it comes to the doctrine of gender identity, that means using pronouns wrong, uncoupling the sex designator words (man, woman, boy, girl) from sex, dehumanising women and girls by reducing them to body parts and bodily functions, appropriating the language of another, much more marginalised group (people with DSDs) and so on. This language abuse is done on purpose to coerce others to acquiesce to their beliefs. Proselytising and if that doesn't work threatening and then punishing people who resist the language change.

The latter of course is more evidence that this isn't natural, organic language change.

Proselytising and if that doesn't work threatening and then punishing people who resist the language change.

The latter of course is more evidence that this isn't natural, organic language change.

I'd agree with both of these observations. For the latter, in particular, this is nothing like the usual time associated with semantic degradation/drift/deterioration/disapprovement/change.

@CharlieParley

Oh dear. You have misunderstood. It's not language feeling abused. I'm a linguist but much as I love language and the study of language, I wouldn't dream of anthropomorphising it.

As I explained in my comment, it's language being abused by people espousing a particular set of beliefs. Just as the communist government did in East Germany by inhibiting and prohibiting the use of certain words, such as those around Christmas for instance and instead inventing and then imposing new words for those Christmas-related things.

When it comes to the doctrine of gender identity, that means using pronouns wrong, uncoupling the sex designator words (man, woman, boy, girl) from sex, dehumanising women and girls by reducing them to body parts and bodily functions, appropriating the language of another, much more marginalised group (people with DSDs) and so on. This language abuse is done on purpose to coerce others to acquiesce to their beliefs. Proselytising and if that doesn't work threatening and then punishing people who resist the language change.

The latter of course is more evidence that this isn't natural, organic language change.

Ok, a couple of things:

Hasn't 'she' been used to refer to adult human males in different cultures and at different times through history with no coordinated, concerted effort to conspire to overthrow human language? These occurrences developed independently and organically and were still intelligible to others in the circumstances. There was no tyranny or doctrine on these occasions, so there naturally occurring precedent for use. And despite this, there has been no " system-wide incoherence and a radical breakdown in public meaning" for societies as predicted by the author of that article.

Additionally, doesn't the interpretation of how language changed in East Germany depend upon the perception of the various parties it impacted? Am I right in saying there was a drive towards atheism which changed the language around Christmas terminology? What if the instigators of change considered that there had been an abuse of language in the first place when random words were assigned to celebrate a festival for a made-up religion which had indoctrinated the people? What if they thought they were correcting this original abuse of language by changing terminology so that people might be less inclined to believe in a made-up God?

Perceptions of abuse of language are situated, rooted, in the minds of people, and this varies from person to person.

In any event, for the author's conclusion to that piece to be invalid it doesn't matter in the slightest the mechanism by which language meaning is changed or extended, it simply matters that it is possible and there is precedent for it.

I have only just managed to catch up on the article and found it a really good read. I also have found your comments intelligent and readable.

Any political theory worth its salt is probably going to take a long view at some point. In the UK, the Labour Party in particular has not been able to entrench itself as a ruling party, with a poor record in elections. However, it has been able to 'take over' institutions where students coming out of universities have tended to take the top jobs (or indeed, most of the jobs) in our public services. When we look aghast at what has happened and how easily the rights of women are being subsumed, we forget that, not only are our institutions captured but also our media. It is no surprise that 'Queer' is being used on Radio 4 - try on the radio first where it will be accepted because your listeners are all of similar educational attainment, nothing to lose as audiences aren't too big.

It is now easy to introduce all that is fundamental to Marxism, queer theory being a tangent of the new society and to use language and not class but end up with the same goals.

The problem for those advocating is that none of the groups knows for sure whether society will wake up before the final cogs are in place. Does that make sense, probably not but I am more distrustful now than I have ever been. Sleepwalking is the worse way to allow change - history tells us that

@highame ...just checking...was it this thread your post was meant for? It's hard to tell.

@FloralBunting

Frankly, I think it's really fucking cheeky to make entitled demands on someone's time who has clearly already taken the time to explain a concept to you, and try and goad them back to it by repeating your refuted assertions.

Yikes, 'cheeky' eh? It's a shame that someone who seems to purport to be fighting the patriarchy is happily using the tools of the patriarchy in an attempt to silence others. But not surprising unfortunately.

9toenails seems pretty intelligent, I am sure they are aware of the mistake they have made. I have no problem pointing that out as they were quite happy to point out mistakes they feel I have made.

Hasn't 'she' been used to refer to adult human males in different cultures and at different times through history with no coordinated, concerted effort to conspire to overthrow human language? These occurrences developed independently and organically and were still intelligible to others in the circumstances. There was no tyranny or doctrine on these occasions, so there naturally occurring precedent for use. And despite this, there has been no " system-wide incoherence and a radical breakdown in public meaning" for societies as predicted by the author of that article.

They weren't actually claiming those men were the female sex category. As CharlieParley points out the use of the new category of female "gender" that trumps biological sex for the people imposing the change is different (my bold):

Just as the communist government did in East Germany by inhibiting and prohibiting the use of certain words, such as those around Christmas for instance and instead inventing and then imposing new words for those Christmas-related things.

When it comes to the doctrine of gender identity, that means using pronouns wrong, uncoupling the sex designator words (man, woman, boy, girl) from sex, dehumanising women and girls by reducing them to body parts and bodily functions, appropriating the language of another, much more marginalised group (people with DSDs) and so on. This language abuse is done on purpose to coerce others to acquiesce to their beliefs. Proselytising and if that doesn't work threatening and then punishing people who resist the language change.

The latter of course is more evidence that this isn't natural, organic language change.