By: Quod Libet
No thorough analysis of transgender theory would be complete without addressing the suspect evolution of its misbegotten nomenclature and how transgender activists redefine (and undefine) words in order to advance their schismatic mission. Make no mistake, the invocation and assignment of moral judgment pertaining to alternative lifestyles is not the purpose of this article. But rather, it’s an exposé, objectively and candidly composed to shed light on the iniquitous abuse of language, and how transgender theory is advanced thereby.
Woke transgender parlance is at once unauthorized and fraudulent. It is contrived to lead unsuspecting, low-resolution thinkers on an addlepated journey down the garden path. Thus, it is entirely disingenuous. Not unlike other contentious public controversies, a war of words has been ignited that now accompanies the strident transgender theory debate. What follows is an exploration of the deliberate and calculating linguistic manipulation that forms the basis of woke transgender doublespeak. Welcome to the inevitable logomachy.
According to Gordon Matthew Sumner (Sting) of the “Police”: “Poets, priests, and politicians have words to thank for their positions.” Language can convey and clarify, edify, enlighten, and inspire. However, like the moon, a dark side looms, in which resides a veritable rogues’ gallery of snake-oil peddlers, car salesmen, bureaucrats, and misguided activists. All of which recognize that their nonsensical ideas, ill-conceived schemes, fibs, and outright lies are nearly impossible to articulate effectively. Why? Words (when they’re clearly defined) tend to get in the way. Finding the right words to express the truth isn’t so difficult. But crafting and proffering semi-plausible lies requires much more effort, underhanded chicanery, and of course, a disreputable temperament.
If your aim is to influence or persuade, then words are (allegorically speaking) your tools, your weapons, your stock-in-trade so to speak. Every manner of advocacy is therefore a word game. Nothing more, nothing less. And fixed definitions are the rules of the game. If you’re selling a bill of goods, the rules of forthright, civilized language tend to interfere, like when you’re advancing transgender theory. So, if your character is somewhat less than optimal, the solution to the language problem is simple: Rules? What rules? Some observers perceive these rule violations. Thank God for people who know when their being gaslit, and have the guts to call it out.
A word is defined by its meaning, and conversely, by all the things it doesn’t mean. A word’s meaning is of maximal importance. What it doesn’t mean is even more important (if that were possible). Hold that thought. Word definitions are akin to reality in the sense that they both can (and do) evolve organically over time. But neither reality nor a word’s definition can be changed irresponsibly, post haste, and without proper authority, by activists with woke agendas, or anybody else for that matter. Notwithstanding, and now so predictably, the illegitimate reengineering of language is a deceitful artifice routinely employed by woke transgender activists.
From a rational, factual, and scientific standpoint, transgender theory is at once radical, fanciful, and highly improbable… actually impossible. As if that wasn’t troublesome enough for transgender activists, long-settled and undisputed definitions stubbornly discomfit their preposterous message. In the reasonable minds of an overwhelming majority, transgender theory is simply a bridge too far. Consequently, and true to woke form, transgender activists endeavor to circumvent or ignore this pons asinorum via their congenital penchant for the unsanctioned manipulation of language. The darn pieces just don’t fit the puzzle… unless they’re twisted.
Transgender theory requires a deliberate blurring of the long-established sex/gender binary. Thus, the word “woman” has been redefined by the left to include any human (male or female) who identifies as a woman. This new, made-up woke definition deviates from the everlasting, totally agreed-upon definition of “an adult female of the human race.” Besides redefining the word “woman,” the left has also endeavored to undefine the word. Redefining a word is an unartful way to lie. Undefining the word serves only to obfuscate and cover up the lie.
Our most recent Supreme Court appointee is a woman, but when asked to define the word “woman,” she said she could not. A child can define the word with little difficulty, but Supreme Court nominee, Ms. Brown can’t? She ought to know, after all, she’s obviously a woman herself. It’s not really that she can’t. It’s that she won’t because the managers of her ideological cabal have strategized and dictated that the word “woman” must remain undefined during her SCOTUS confirmation hearing. There’s a reason for this duplicitous ambiguity.
The left has recognized that one of their own pet positions is both dubious and unpopular. Accordingly, it’s a political liability. They know it would be met with objection and resistance and would be (should be) viewed as disqualifying to a Supreme Court nominee. To get appointed, confirmed, or elected, the woke will say whatever is deemed politically expedient. And when their own dodgy notions impede their progress, they not-so slyly remain mum (in other words, play dumb) as it pertains to their closely held, radical core beliefs. Was Rush Limbaugh letter-perfect when he opined that a “gaffe” is when a liberal accidentally tells the truth? Inarguably, he was.
The word “sex” appears in the American Heritage Dictionary, published 50 years ago. It means, “The property by which organisms are classified by their reproductive functions.” Or, “Either of two divisions, designated male and female.” Or, “The physiological, functional and psychological differences that distinguish male and female.” According to that long-settled definition and Webster’s current unvarying explication, there are two (and only two) sexes, male and female, and they have physiological, functional, and psychological differences. This is an indisputable fact backed by science which has remained fundamentally unchanged and unchallenged.
By all accounts, one’s sex is determined entirely by their biological composition and nowise pertains to their mental or emotional particulars. Therefore, the term “biological sex” is by definition, supererogatory. Besides one’s biological sex, there is no other category. The phrase “biological sex” is unnecessarily redundant and superfluous, and worse, it’s also misleading by implying certain other classifications of sex exist; none do.
In most cases, one’s sex is readily apparent to the layman observer and obvious to medical professionals who needn’t be proficient in mind-reading. In extremely rare cases, the sex of a malformed individual may be medically ambiguous, but these anomalous outliers in no way contradict the male/female binary. To further clarify; what one thinks, feels, imagines, wants, prefers, or chooses has absolutely no bearing upon their sex, none at all. Genuine male/female sex distinctions are intrinsic and integrated into one’s DNA well before birth.
Travel with me now, back to the relatively clearheaded days of yesteryear, all the way back to the 1970s when literal sex-change transmutation was universally considered to be both a fictitious delusion and an impossible pipedream. This is where things get interesting considering the definition of “gender.” Gender is and always was a grammatical term applying to how words are categorized male or female (as in the Spanish language) or how words are otherwise classified. The word gender also was (and still is, really) defined as a synonym of sex or the classification of the same. That’s it. No mas. Gender has always been a biological reality, not a state of mind.
Two generations ago, there was absolutely nothing in the dictionary about gender referring to one’s mental, emotional, or psychological state, or to their sexual identity. Not a single word. The word gender referred to the linguistic male/female distinction between “amigo” and “amiga” for example. And for centuries, it has been applicable when selecting a puppy. “What is the sex?” “What is the gender?” Same question, same meaning. Thus, sex and gender mean exactly the same thing and the words may be used interchangeably. Contrary to contemporary woke, transgender misrepresentation, your gender is your sex, and vice versa. Both of which are determined by medical science, exclusively by your DNA and anatomy, and by no other means, period.
