Gender and the co-opting of language

You know, I was sitting thinking about the 87 “gender” thing, and the “I F*cking Love Science™” crowd.

It hit me that once again, a word is being co-opted by the sophists.  A word that means one thing, and they pretend it means another — simultaneously coasting on the actual meaning … social reputation … of the word and denying that very meaning.

You know, I could grant them the word “sexuality”.  Maybe there are eleventy jillion “sexualities”.  The vast majority of them a result of nurture (or lack thereof) rather than nature.

But there are only two genders, scientifically, in nature.  Oh, sure, sometimes nature screws up and produces a person here or there who has some physical attributes of both genders.  And that’s certainly no reflection on those people any more than being born deaf or blind or with three arms is.  It is not “normal”.  It is what it is.  A good term would be “neither, but we’ll try to fit you in as best we can.”

But hijacking the word “gender” (which is, in fact, a scientific term) to essentially mean “sexual preference(s)” or “self-identification” is intentionally dishonest.  Pretending you’re still talking about science while using this word is a special kind of stupid dishonesty.

The progressives did the same thing with “liberal”, and myriad other words.

We shouldn’t let them get away with it.  Causes all sorts of problems.

Loading Likes...
This entry was posted in Uncategorized on by .

About philmon

Part mountain junkie, part decent amateur photographer, part survivalist, part not-so-decent amateur musician, part sysadmin. Husband, step-dad, grandpa, and music freak who digs mechanical clocks, barometers, and Gil Elvgren pinups. Studied Meteorolgy & Computer Science. And the U.S. Constitution.

7 thoughts on “Gender and the co-opting of language

  1. Anonymous White Male

    “The progressives did the same thing with “liberal”, and myriad other words.”

    The progressives did the same thing with “progressive”. Don’t use this to refer to libtards. It feeds their ego. “Hey, who can be against progress?” they ask as they are about to be beheaded by an Islamic refugee. The left never defines their goal and uses the word “progressive” to mean change agent, never saying what they want to change things into.

    1. Recusant

      Progress toward what? We’re supposed to think that it automatically means a better future; historically, the future for lots of people has been anything but rosy.

  2. Anonymous White Male

    Like I’ve said before, you are making progress after you walk off a cliff. Very rapid progress. At least until you hit the ground.

  3. notsothoreau

    Here’s a thought I had the other day: I think this all started when they pushed “gender neutral” words. We couldn’t use fireman or postman. We had to use those incredibly convoluted substitutes. seems like a natural progression from that to the idea that male and female are too limiting.

  4. Rich Whiteman

    Being a dick, I always use the words that they’ve changed to annoy them and try to shock people into returning to normal.
    I use Global Warming all the time, and it tweaks the freaks. I say Mailman, and then ask if I should say “person-person” instead.
    I say things like “Bruce Jenner” on the few occasions I have to discuss him.
    Don’t let them change the language. Change it back, one conversation at a time.

  5. Linda Fox

    Most people are decent – if someone is born with ambiguous genitalia, or has a circumcision accident, we’ll grant you the right to call yourself anything you want. Won’t give you a hard time in the restroom. Won’t fight to keep you from doing pretty much what you want.

    But, grown people just deciding “Oh, I always WANTED to be the other sex” (there are only 2), and deciding to mutilate themselves to make their pretense more “real”, are just whacko. In many parts of life, I won’t fuss with them, although I reserve the right to roll my eyes behind their back. There are only a few exceptions:
    – Marriage – If they’d be satisfied with civil unions, I’d have no problem. It’s the potential of FORCING churches/temples to allow them to go through the ceremony that puts my back up – as it does for a lot of people.
    – Adoption – If a mother wants to relinquish her child to a same-sex-united couple, that’s generally her business. If they can persuade an adoption agency that they are mentally stable enough, not my monkey. Same for the “changed” genders. However, I would oppose any effort to deny those mothers a voice in selecting the prospective parents. That means, if the mom says “no gender-changers, no gays” – she has that right.
    – Restrooms – Once the bottom matches the top, go ahead and use any restroom you want, with my blessing. If you’re “not fully there”, then you better behave, and look, in a way that doesn’t cause me to question your sex’s appropriateness in that restroom.
    – Do I “mis-gender” you? Politely correct me as to your preferences, and I’ll oblige. Most would agree. There are those who refuse, on the grounds that they would be telling a lie.
    Eh. Not a big problem. In the workplace, they can be told – use the name they want to be called by – avoid using what you consider incorrect pronouns. Occasionally making a mistake? Not actionable. Neither is structuring one’s conversation to avoid using pronouns completely.

  6. Morgan K Freeberg

    The story more than one leftist has delivered to me, and it seems they have some unity on this, is that “sex” is the biological attribute and “gender” is the identity.

    To which I have made a point of replying: Doesn’t this say all that needs to be said about “science,” which is the study of nature. The ACTUAL thing in nature is unimportant, the feeling one has about it is all-important…

    As you managed to observe yourself, it is intellectually dishonest of them to pretend they’re still talking about science. They’re not. They’re talking about feelings. Empowered to pontificate about any other scientific discipline, leftists will just do more of exactly the same thing: Veer away from the actual study of nature and start obsessing over how designated-entitled-oppressed people feel about it.

Comments are closed.