"However, I do think it is fair to *urge* people not to use certain
concepts or certain terms -- for instance because they are ambiguous or
misleading -- provided that one gives *reasons* for one's suggestions,
and then lets people choose for themselves whether they agree or not."
I agree with you entirely. I'd only add that the option to ignore arguments about terminology related to the concept of gender and focus on other things must also be recognised as a legitimate option. I don't anticipate you disagreeing with that, Alan, but, my goodness, it seems to have become very difficult for some people who have become laser-focused on one issue to recognise that other people might not be. There's a distinct culture wars fatigue setting in. I particularly appreciated Laura Kennedy's post pertaining to this recently.
"If someone you don’t know that well is talking to you about a pet political issue that you don’t want to discuss with them for whatever reason, I highly recommend politely saying ‘I don’t care about that’. No qualifiers.
The bluntness of this almost exclusively results in the person, speechless and horrified, exiting promptly."
I agree with the gist here. Just one thing. The idea that transgender people are gender non-conforming makes no sense to me at all. No idea is more gender conforming than trans.
Yes - this is so overlooked. A friend in her 50s is sure that, had she grown up in today's cultural climate, she'd have rejected her true nature (gay tomboy, which she is now very comfortable with) and would have lopped off her breasts etc (the male gay perspective is echoed by Andrew Sullivan). She'd been greatly disturbed/ashamed of her nature (truly, naturally non-binary), and reckons that the siren call of trans ideology - to fit into a conservative & reductive male/female binary, would have been all too tempting (as I hear is common take in Iran - 'gays are unacceptable....but hey maybe you're not gay just in the wrong body, in which case we won't persecute you but help you transtion'). The cult's doublethink is confusing, but can be stated roughly as - 'be yourself, don't be ashamed of who you are....so undertake radical surgery and taking hormonal medications for life'; 'sex is not a binary, we're all on a spectrum....so get with the programme and undertake radical medical, social changes to make yourself a man/woman (and fit into the binary).
Greg Lukianooff could add a fourth item to his 'great untruths' (which are inversions of classic wisdom)' - i) What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker"; ii) "always trust your feelings"; iii) "life is a battle between good people and evil people".......iv) you are not born as yourself, but have to undertake a radical programme of psychological, medical, physical, social change to become your true self'.
Funny, I was just thinking of Greg L. He mentioned on a recent podcast that he took the original footage of Nick Christakis being harassed by his students over the Halloween campus thing. His insights about "reverse CBT" are astute.
Committed liberals, the predecessors of today's wokies, have been mistaking language for power sources for generations. Language *can* be a power source, but not the way the language police think. This is why ethnic/race identity levels keep changing - I remember when 'colored' was acceptable for black people, as was 'Negro' - MLK was particularly fond of the latter. Now it's taboo. Now you're not supposed to say Hispanic, but Latinx. Liberals and their woke children keep thinking that changing the language will change the attitudes, but it doesn't - the attitudes have to change, and then the language no longer matters. Unlike it's something really originally ugly, like the n-word or the k-word for Jews.
Interesting, I had never thought of the GC woke category before. I had noticed many years ago that the ideology had roots in the theoretical feminism that some GC folks used as a starting point many years ago.
Interesting read. The only censorship or “policing” I really wish to see is in elementary school classrooms and lesson plans. However, I do believe language matters and encouraging other Gender Critical individuals to think about the terms they are using is important.
Alan Sokal is having some difficulty leaving a comment and has sent me the following in an email:
"Both Abhishek and Helen are friends of mine (and Abhishek is a fellow
mathematician!); but let me make a brief *partial* dissension.
I fully agree that no one has the right to force other people to use
or not to use certain terms, or to express or not to express certain
ideas. That is elementary liberalism, which I wholeheartedly endorse.
However, I do think it is fair to *urge* people not to use certain
concepts or certain terms -- for instance because they are ambiguous or
misleading -- provided that one gives *reasons* for one's suggestions,
and then lets people choose for themselves whether they agree or not.
So I personally would argue that the concept of gender identity
(and hence also the term) is a *reactionary* concept, which turns
upside-down everything that we learned (or ought to have learned)
50 years ago from the feminist and gay-rights movements. This idea
is brilliantly expounded and illustrated (with direct quotes from
gender-identity advocates) in the book of the Swedish feminist Kajsa
Ekis Ekman, "On the Meaning of Sex".
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Meaning-Sex-Thoughts-about-Definition/dp/1925950662
Last week in Madrid I met a group of brave Spanish feminists who
are trying to hold back the tide of gender-identity ideology in
Spain, and I was able, during the question period after my talk on
"Ideological threats to science", to give them a bit of support:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQJNEDE6URk&t=4569s"
"However, I do think it is fair to *urge* people not to use certain
concepts or certain terms -- for instance because they are ambiguous or
misleading -- provided that one gives *reasons* for one's suggestions,
and then lets people choose for themselves whether they agree or not."
I agree with you entirely. I'd only add that the option to ignore arguments about terminology related to the concept of gender and focus on other things must also be recognised as a legitimate option. I don't anticipate you disagreeing with that, Alan, but, my goodness, it seems to have become very difficult for some people who have become laser-focused on one issue to recognise that other people might not be. There's a distinct culture wars fatigue setting in. I particularly appreciated Laura Kennedy's post pertaining to this recently.
"If someone you don’t know that well is talking to you about a pet political issue that you don’t want to discuss with them for whatever reason, I highly recommend politely saying ‘I don’t care about that’. No qualifiers.
The bluntness of this almost exclusively results in the person, speechless and horrified, exiting promptly."
https://substack.com/@laurakennedy1/note/c-113232357?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1nm3qt
Helen, you’ve said it better than I ever could. Thank you.
It's like a cold pint on a hot day, most refreshing, thanks
I agree with the gist here. Just one thing. The idea that transgender people are gender non-conforming makes no sense to me at all. No idea is more gender conforming than trans.
Yes - this is so overlooked. A friend in her 50s is sure that, had she grown up in today's cultural climate, she'd have rejected her true nature (gay tomboy, which she is now very comfortable with) and would have lopped off her breasts etc (the male gay perspective is echoed by Andrew Sullivan). She'd been greatly disturbed/ashamed of her nature (truly, naturally non-binary), and reckons that the siren call of trans ideology - to fit into a conservative & reductive male/female binary, would have been all too tempting (as I hear is common take in Iran - 'gays are unacceptable....but hey maybe you're not gay just in the wrong body, in which case we won't persecute you but help you transtion'). The cult's doublethink is confusing, but can be stated roughly as - 'be yourself, don't be ashamed of who you are....so undertake radical surgery and taking hormonal medications for life'; 'sex is not a binary, we're all on a spectrum....so get with the programme and undertake radical medical, social changes to make yourself a man/woman (and fit into the binary).
Greg Lukianooff could add a fourth item to his 'great untruths' (which are inversions of classic wisdom)' - i) What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker"; ii) "always trust your feelings"; iii) "life is a battle between good people and evil people".......iv) you are not born as yourself, but have to undertake a radical programme of psychological, medical, physical, social change to become your true self'.
Funny, I was just thinking of Greg L. He mentioned on a recent podcast that he took the original footage of Nick Christakis being harassed by his students over the Halloween campus thing. His insights about "reverse CBT" are astute.
When it got enough power, the trans movement started censoring people it disagreed with.
When they got enough power, racial-justice movements started censoring people they disagreed with.
When it got enough power, the MAGA movement started censoring people it disagreed with.
How are gender-critical feminists different from the above three? They haven't got enough power.
Yet.
Committed liberals, the predecessors of today's wokies, have been mistaking language for power sources for generations. Language *can* be a power source, but not the way the language police think. This is why ethnic/race identity levels keep changing - I remember when 'colored' was acceptable for black people, as was 'Negro' - MLK was particularly fond of the latter. Now it's taboo. Now you're not supposed to say Hispanic, but Latinx. Liberals and their woke children keep thinking that changing the language will change the attitudes, but it doesn't - the attitudes have to change, and then the language no longer matters. Unlike it's something really originally ugly, like the n-word or the k-word for Jews.
Interesting, I had never thought of the GC woke category before. I had noticed many years ago that the ideology had roots in the theoretical feminism that some GC folks used as a starting point many years ago.
Last paragraph is my gold standard. Have a lovely weekend everyone!
Woke is broke so take a toke 😎
No
Interesting read. The only censorship or “policing” I really wish to see is in elementary school classrooms and lesson plans. However, I do believe language matters and encouraging other Gender Critical individuals to think about the terms they are using is important.