AN ARTICLE ABOUT PRONOUNS AND LANGUAGE
The Brain, Language and Gender Ideology (Part 1)
https://x.com/Psychgirl211/status/1883893242892107818?s=20
(This is Part 1 of a two-part discussion on the role of language in advancing gender ideology and its effects on our psychology. Be sure to read both parts).
In English, at least, it began with pronouns. (1)
Before we had ‘Genderspeak’s’ litany of intentionally deceptive and bewildering terms such as ‘assigned at birth’; ‘embodiment goals’; ‘gender nonconformity’; and ‘misgendering’ (to name just a few), we had ‘preferred pronouns’. We were told that calling men ‘s/her’ and women ‘he/him’ was merely a harmless act of politeness and respect and would have no negative impact. Indeed, if we ‘misgendered’ a person (i.e. referred to them as their correct sex) we were increasing their risk of suicide.
But as it turns out, ‘preferred pronouns’ (actually and more precisely, ‘aberrant pronouns’) were an early salvo in the gender wars, fired when most of us were unprepared for what was to come. Now, because of misguided sympathy and the desire to live and let live, these aberrant pronouns have paved the way for the excesses of a crazed ideology. A 'belief' system that not only denies the reality of the binary nature of human sex but which, as we now have discovered cannot police itself, or rein in its more crazed adherents.
And, as with everything concerning gender ideology the only thought is to the mental ‘wellbeing’ of the trans person. No thought is given to how the use of ‘Genderspeak’ affects those who are being compelled to deny the evidence of their very eyes and to pretend the person whom they are addressing (or speaking of) has assumed a sexual identity to which they are not entitled, or, worse yet, purports to be of no sex at all.
The role of language (in furthering the aims of gender ideology)
Our uniqueness (and power) as humans derives from our use of language. A simple definition of language is: “a structured means of communication that consists of grammar and vocabulary”. The purpose of language is therefore to effectively communicate meaning by facilitating interactions and understanding between individuals and groups.
There are about 7,000 human languages in existence today. And in every one of them, there is a word for ‘woman’ and there is a word for ‘man’.
This universal constant arises because our brains have evolved to almost instantly differentiate females from males. For the purposes of sexual reproduction and safety we need to be able to know quickly, if not immediately, whether we are looking at a female or a male of our species. It is a survival thing.
We are programmed from birth to differentiate sex. Newborns even with poor and blurry eyesight will gaze preferentially at a female rather than at a male face. This can be any female face of any age or 'race', not just their mother’s. Babies will instinctively initially seek, attune and bond with females as opposed to males. It is a survival thing.
Indeed the first word we all learn as humans is the word to describe ‘mother’. And in almost every human language this word is formed using the letter ‘M’ as this is the first sound (phoneme) a baby learns to make.
But ‘Genderspeak’ seeks to erase this innate understanding and linguistic expression of biological differences. It seeks by use of language to deny objective truth and to deceive. It uses language not to facilitate effective communication but to hinder it.
What happens when we are seriously (and not pretending) to speak of men as women (and vice versa)?
What does this do to our brains?
Psychological theories of language
There are a number of theories which explain why it is important for language to be clear and to convey meaning effectively. Two considered here are ‘Cognitive Load Theory’ and ‘Dual Processing Theory’.
Cognitive Load Theory
This posits that the brain has a limited capacity for processing information at any given time. When language is unclear or ambiguous it increases the ‘cognitive load’ making it harder for people to understand and retain the information being communicated.
An example of the impact of Cognitive Load Theory in the real world was provided in the 2021 census in England and Wales. Here it was asked: “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?” What did this question mean? It contains two abstract concepts ‘gender’ (note: not ‘sex) and ‘identify’, which each need a high-level understanding of English to decode. The question also presupposed a familiarity with gender ideology and an understanding that ‘gender’ is supposedly different from ‘sex’.
Consequently, the highest number of ‘transgender’ people in the UK was recorded in the London Borough of Newham, a strongly Muslim borough where 41% of residents do not have English as a first language and where 9% cannot speak English at all. (Brighton and Hove, described as the ‘LGBTQ+ capital of the UK' by contrast ranked only 20th in the number of ‘transgender’ residents).
The Office for Statistics Regulation eventually downgraded this part of the 2021 census from ‘official statistics’ to ‘official statistics in development’. This has never before happened since the census was first held in 1801.
Fourteen confusing words when all was needed was “are you female or male?”. A cognitive load indeed.
Dual Processing Theory
Another similar theory of language is ‘Dual Processing Theory’. According to this theory, information is processed through two different systems. ‘System 1’ and ‘System 2’. System 1 is fast, automatic and unconscious, while System 2 is slower, more deliberate and conscious.
'System 1' is typically responsible for quick, instinctive processing of language such as recognising familiar words, understanding the meaning of phrases and understanding conversation without deep thought. For example, when chatting with a friend, or asking a shop assistant for help or in the hundreds of unremarkable everyday conversations and verbal interactions in which we all engage.
By contrast 'System 2' is activated when we need to perform more complex linguistic tasks like parsing a complicated sentence or understanding abstract or unfamiliar language. Such as making sense of a technical article, or following a recipe, or instructions to put together a piece of IKEA furniture. (Or reading this piece, perhaps!)
In Dual Processing Theory both systems can work together. ‘System 1’ for everyday language and ‘System 2’ for when we need to understand something more complex.
But the language of gender ideology pushes us into System 2 with unnecessary frequency.
We are all now walking around in a fog of confusion where our brains are constantly having to untangle, decode, parse, simplify and then reconstruct what should be basic easily understood ‘System 1’ information.
Take this headline from the Daily Mail newspaper about a sexual assault that occurred in Guernsey in 2021, written by ‘journalist’ David Pilditch:
‘Transgender rapist, 19 is facing jail after she carried out sex attack on woman she invited into her home before she went on to identify as female’.
Admittedly, the headline was initially badly written, however, what does it mean? Was the attacker a woman or a man? Was the victim a woman or a man? What exactly is meant by 'identify' as female? Even a native English-speaker is forced to repeatedly read what should be a simple statement in order to unravel its meaning.
The rest of the article is even more confusing. It uses s/her pronouns throughout to describe the rapist (with of course absolutely no regard to the victim’s feelings). Oh, and the judge apologised to the rapist for describing him as a ‘transgender male’ because the rapist wanted to be referred to as a ‘transgender female’. What on was going on here? The judge isn’t the only one who was confused!
That newspaper article was needlessly complex and was thus rendered almost incomprehensible. To decipher its meaning we are pushed from 'System 1' to 'System 2' processing. And this is not even an academic paper. It is just an newspaper story. And it is now happening all of the time.
Trans language is being made deliberately confusing
The function of such cynical linguistic shenanigans is to impair our processing of language/information and to confuse us. And it works. For example, research by Murray Blackburn Mackenzie (MBM) conducted in 2023 found that 40% of Britons thought that a ‘trans woman' was a female. Upon such misunderstanding lies a gleefully reported tolerance for 'biological males' (the System 2 terminology now needlessly used to describe 'men') in using women’s facilities, for in women’s sports and for gender ideology in general.
‘Genderspeak’ thus impairs the efficiency of those parts of the brain responsible for processing language. We have turned the unique human ability of language against ourselves.
We also have to ask what happens when people have an impairment in their processing of language? For this discussion I defer to the attached article by ‘Melanie’ a Speech and Language therapist working in the NHS.
https://x.com/Psychgirl211/status/1882105449606009136
Is the English language to blame?
I am currently learning Arabic at beginner level. Arabic is a 'grammatical gender language'. Every noun is gendered. A book, a house, a table, a cat, a computer. It is either ‘male’ or ‘female’. Feminine words are distinguished by a grammatical sign called the ‘ta marbuta’. This looks like a raised ‘a’ or an ‘o’ and is added to the ending of a word to signify it is ‘female’.
So far, I have been taught that generally ‘things’ which “give life” are ‘female’. For example, the Sun, water, soil. Additionally, words such as ‘daughter’ and ‘mother’ are automatically assumed to be female therefore no ‘ta marbuta’ needs to be added. In fact, unprovoked, my teacher has stated that “we don’t need ‘ta marbuta’ for these words because how can a daughter be male?” “We know mother is female. No ‘ta marbuta’ is needed she says. It would be "wrong grammar", because "how can a mother be male?” How indeed? What, I wonder, would the Arabic language make of 'they/them' or 'ze/zir' pronouns, or “transw*n?” Maybe my teacher needs to become more ‘inclusive’!
When I lived in the Middle East, I was bemused by my clients’ addition of ‘a’ to my professional title ‘Dr’ (which I now understand to be the ‘ta marbuta’ suffix indicating I am female. I thus became ‘Doctora’, or ‘Dra’. But by introducing myself and signing documents as ‘Dr’ I was unwittingly signalling that I was male when evidently, I am not. Just as my doing this on an individual basis may have caused much confusion, I now wonder what the impact might be of ‘gender-neutral’ language on speakers of languages where gender is built into the grammatical structure. I suspect in such cases the brain is frequently in ‘System 2’ of cognitive processing (complex) when it should be in System 1 (simple).
I wonder whether gender ideology arose in America because of the structure of English. English is a ‘natural gender language’ where gendered pronouns are only used when referring to an individual’s sex. In English, nouns (apart from countries and ships) do not have a gender. By contrast in grammatical gender languages such as Spanish, French and as we have just seen, Arabic, nouns and pronouns are assigned a grammatical gender regardless of the actual sex of the person or the thing being referred to. In English, we also only have one second-person pronoun ‘you’ used for both males and females.
Thus far I have considered the impact of Cognitive Load and Dual Processing Theory in respect to English-speakers. It is confusing enough to process information when a single person is referred to as ‘they/them’, or a male he/she or vice-versa. But what must be the cognitive impact of gender ideology on speakers of grammatical gender languages?
It is not surprising then that people are becoming increasingly exasperated with gender ideology. Quite apart from its cruelty and misogyny and illogicality, it is simply just mentally tiring!
Could then gender ideology have arisen anywhere but in an Eng lish-speaking country? Is the simple lack of a gendered second-person singular/plural pronoun responsible for one of the greatest social and medical calamities in human history?
Over two thousand years ago in The Art of War, Sun Tzu said “all warfare is based on deception”.
This is indeed still true.
(1)
https://assets-cdn.sums.su/ED/NewsNEWS/A%20Short%20Guide%20to%20Sharing%20Pronouns%20for%20Trans%20Allies.pdf
Part two: https://x.com/Psychgirl211/status/1885085883843346704?s=20