Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Confused Language Leads to Confused Thought
In my professional career as a lawyer, I usually opposed stereotypical “lawyerly” language. No “party of the first part, party of the second part” language, and definitely no passive verbs (“such and such will be completed by specified date”). For much of my career, I was on staff (in-house) at large corporations, where I wrote business contracts and advised business executives. In writing business contracts, I considered it essential that all parties to the contract knew exactly which party was responsible for which task to which specification by which deadline. I used the names of the parties throughout the contract. Every task was expressed with which party was to do an active verb that constituted the task. [I provoked some inadvertently funny discussions when my attempts to be specific revealed that the negotiating parties had very different ideas about who was going to do certain tasks.]
Business executives I advised needed clear summaries about whether an action they were thinking about was consistent with an existing contract, or consistent with existing law, or what the probabilities and options were if the contact or law was not clear. Unclear language in laws, court decisions, and contracts kept frustrating me.
This morning I read a story about a middle school girl being suspended from school and her father suspended from his job as a school soccer coach.
A Vermont middle school soccer coach and his daughter were suspended allegedly for complaining about a trans female in the girls’ locker room.
Reading the story is very confusing, as the reader has to continually do mental gymnastics to keep in mind what the writer means by “trans female.”* The reader would have a much easier time understanding the story and its background controversy if the writers had just used clear, concise language: “A Vermont middle school soccer coach and his daughter were suspended allegedly for complaining about a boy in the girls’ locker room.”
The article writer could then explain that the school thinks the boy should be allowed in the girls’ locker room because the boy thinks he’s a girl; that the school believes the boy deserves for everyone to agree with his thinking that he’s a girl; and that the girl and her father need to be punished for their bigotry in objecting to allowing the boy who thinks he’s a girl to enter the girls’ locker room. Simple. Clear. The writer later summarizes the father soccer coach pointing out that the person coming into the girls’ locker room to change clothes is male, but until then a reader who is not up on the latest trendy lingo is left in confusion about why there’s a problem.
The “left” (or “woke” or however you want to call the social change vanguard) introduce a lot of confusion and ambiguity into our language. I have noted in other contexts that almost every new term the left introduces to be “more inclusive” actually makes the language less precise, and more confusing to the reader or listener. The left seems to depend on confusion to push their ideology.
I refuse to go along with the left’s confusing language. If more of us refused to use the new language, and encouraged others (like our media sources) to use clear and precise language, people could think more clearly.
* Maybe I’m just easily confused, but I always have trouble keeping straight whether a “trans female” is supposed to be a girl who thinks she’s a boy, or a boy who thinks he’s a girl. Every time I encounter “trans female” or “trans male” I have to stop to think about what that means. Such confusion interferes with my ability to think clearly about the issues involved. Language should help clear thinking, not interfere with clear thinking.
Published in Culture
Let’s call boys, boys; and girls, girls. Fixed it for you.
Same. I remember some years ago asking over and over on a different internet forum what a “transwoman” was. And yet nobody would ever answer. Either they didn’t know either or they refused to put it in clear terms, because . . .
. . . if a transwoman is a woman (as the new dogma insists), then every woman is a transwoman.
There’s no way for wokies to explain the meaning of “transwoman” without committing an ideological sin. By the same token, someone who insists that “non-binary” and “transgender” are two valid identities must ignore that “trans” requires the existence of a gender binary. These logical Gordian knots cannot be cut.
The fix for this is simple. It’s impossible for a boy to change into a girl or a girl to change into a boy. Since transitioning is an impossibility, trans simply means fake.
Trans female = fake female
Trans male = fake male
One other point: Don’t fall into the trap of saying “a girl who thinks she’s a boy.” We are not mind readers. We have no idea what she thinks. All we know is what she claims.
Girl who thinks she’s a boy = Girl who claims to be a boy.
I think communication is getting even worse with use of the plural pronouns for a singular subject: “Someone called us about this, and they asked us what our opinion was.” :)
I now believe the only answer is to abolish pronouns. They are getting very confusing.
The worst of this practice of converting to plural to avoid saying the more cumbersome, albeit elegant, “he or she” is that no single person ever does anything anymore. The only actors in our society are the nameless faceless sexless “they” blob.
“They” want it that way. No responsibility that way.
I think confusion is the object of the “movement.”
Yep, exactly.
She met him at his office.
vs.
They met them at their office.
Zero tolerance for this crap.
Gee, you think the father might be concerned the “trans girl” is actually a boy who wants access to a room where girls get naked. You think he might be concerned because a “trans girl” raped a real girl in a Virgina school bathroom. You think the father might be concerned that his daughter will be the sexual assault target for this “trans girl.”
Nothing to see here . . .
I don’t know what’s confused about this use of language, it seems that it is more a political use of language – to enforce one world view or another. On this issue language is not neutral.
True. Countless are the times I have read something that mentions one person and then starts using “they.” I’m going back and forth through the item trying to figure out who the additional person(s) came in and who those additional persons are. Only after a lengthy search do I figure out that “they” refers to only one person. Very confusing.
You nailed it.
During the Red Chinese Cultural Revolution, a man liked Mao so much that he instructed his barber to cut his hair in the same hair style.
Shortly after that, the local Commie snoops informed on him. He was dragged from his home, placed on a tall wobbly stool, and pelted with eggs and rotting fruit by an angry brigade of diligent party members.
The object was to teach him the lesson that no citizen in China could emulate Mao in any way shape or form, without first asking permission.
And yet, also at the same time, most meetings that were held by local party members carefully taught their neighbors that emulating Mao was the greatet service one could perform for humanity.
The Left has succeeded!
Don’t think, just feel.
Or, perhaps– a girl who currently claims to be a boy.
I’ve about given up on trying to unravel the new Woke pronouns while reading the Oregonian; it’s sometimes very hard to understand whether the story is referring to a single person or a group.
You are not allowed to refuse to use the new wording or customes. To do so is a one way trip out the HR door. Been there done that.
Why I decided to stay retired after being prematurely retired involuntarily 5 years ago. I refuse to deal with the modern HR language diktats. When the business press expresses bafflement at why so many older but not really old people have left the labor force, I keep wanting to point them to me as exemplary of people the language and sensibilities of the modern era have driven out of the market.
I’m not sure who started using the word “cis” or the word “trans” used in this context. But whoever it was, they don’t get to define it. I mean, who made them the big language sheriff of the house?
I define these things my own damn way. And my way makes it all clear:
Cis = Actual
Trans = Pretend
Non-binary = Mistaken
If you stick to these definitions, confusion evaporates.
Incidentally, all the rest of the letters in the LGBTQZHL… formulations are not genders. They are sexual tastes and preferences that a man or a woman might have. Liking to have someone roll hard boiled eggs at you while shouting bombs away! does not make you a new gender. It just makes you embarrassing.
The issue is not the changeres. The issue is the enforcers. This stuff hits with government backing / corporate backing / legal backing. You know the guys that set the rules. You play by their rules or be swept from the board.
This is the back cover of a tween/early teen book called How to be Ace by Rebecca Burgess. I actually don’t mind the message: it’s reassuring kids who aren’t interested in sex that it’s okay not to be. But I just cannot abide the they pronoun thing. It impedes and obscures clear communication.
I wish more things would promote the message that sex is not the be all of the world. The pressure society puts on sex is crazy. Now even women seem to believe not to have sex by the second or third encounter is weird. I have always found that sex without a relationship to very hollow and empty. Not sure why my perspective is thought to be the wrong weird one.
Oh my gosh.
This new “style” is driving me absolutely crazy. It is so illogical, for one thing.
I think the Merriam-Webster’s and Chicago Manual editors descended into this madness all because of the quirky use of “everyone,” which, in its usage means “all.” The word is a collective noun in its sense even though it translates to “every one of them . . . is.” The younger editors just couldn’t accept that quirkiness–and it is that quirkiness that makes studying English fun and old Victorian novels interesting. To “fix” it, they gave up on the singular forms of all nouns and subsequently pronouns. They’ve been going in the plural direction for years to address “sexist” language, and this new acceptance of “they” in place of “he or she” is just the final blow.
If we all have to be unisex, what’s the difference anyway? Why don’t we just go back to the old-fashioned elegant editorial “he.” That was so clear. And inclusive. :) We knew it meant “everyone.”
Yes, please.
We are all going to end up pointing and grunting, and xir will have no one to blame but xirself.
Don’t “studies show” that the younger generations are no longer having sex?
I refuse to call this boy a trans-female. But even here on R> I caught a bit of flack for it, with at least one person saying that I should use the approved language.
But calling this boy a trans-male, as I would do, let’s every reader form a clear picture, that this was a male acting as a female.
And yes, Zafar is probably right insofar as this is deliberately confusing just to make talking about it all the more difficult.
He’s can’t claim to be a girl if he still has his male equipment, have it cut off and at least we’ll know you’re serious about it, you’re still nuts but at least you’re not a con artist just out to see the undressed girls.
I wouldn’t be so sure. People have arms and legs surgically removed to serve some kind of compulsion.
I understand the common distinction based on “bottom surgery” to demonstrate commitment to the cause, but still literally every cell in his body says “I am male” via its embedded DNA. No amount of surgery or hormone treatment will change this fact.
But it would limit this phenomenon to the true nut cases and keep out the con artists.
Really clear message from a meme featuring John Wayne standing in the doorway of an old style Western barn, stating “In my day, when a guy cut off his balls, we didn’t call him ‘female.’
“We called him a ‘guy who cut off his balls.'”