Note: This blog post has been retracted, since I no longer think of it as a good representation of how I think about its topic. I may, or may not, have written a better post about the same topic since; check the full list of posts.
This is my first try.
0. Contents
1. Sex
2. Gendered language
3. Gender roles
4. The revolution
5. In favor of the revolution
6. Against the revolution
7. Using words today
1. Sex
We assume for the discussion that sex is well-defined. Some persons unambiguously have the male sex and some persons unambiguously have the female sex.
The male sex is the one that naturally has the power to make members of the female sex become pregnant. The female sex is the one that naturally has the power to be made pregnant by members of the male sex.
Some persons have this power prevented from working because of various circumstances, and this does not prevent them belonging to the sex. Some persons have conditions which actually make it ambiguous which sex they belong to, but these are very few.
For all we know, it appears that the male sex is genetically caused by the presence of the Y chromosome, and the female sex is genetically caused by its absence.
2. Gendered language
Gendered language is language that we use, where applicable, to communicate the sex of things. The paradigm case of gendered language is the language phenomenon known as grammatical gender, whereby some words are “male” and some words are “female”.
In English, besides some pairs of names such as “male” and “female”, and “man” and “woman”, the only gendered words are pronouns, such as he/him and she/her. Adjectives and adverbs are mostly genderless.
Regarding infrahuman animals, we seem to have always used gendered words strictly in accordance with indicators of the sex of the animals. When speaking of humans, the situation is complicated by gender expression and gender roles.
Gender expression is nonverbal gendered language. For instance, a person may communicate, externally, that she is a member of the female sex by means of wearing clothes that are socially understood in association with that sex.
Nonverbal gendered language is parallel to nonverbal language in general. It is looser, it is not as clearly defined. But as much as there are clear cases of unambiguous nonverbal language – for instance, wearing a police uniform clearly communicates that you are a policeman – there have been some clear cases of unambiguous gender expression. That is, until the revolution.
3. Gender roles
Gender roles are a set of norms, customs, expectations, which society has associated with the sexes. The name comes from persons of a particular sex being expected to play particular roles in particular situations.
Since gender roles are “a social construct”, they depend a lot on language. Some persons have been able, for various reasons, to socially play the role of the opposite sex, and they have been aided in doing so by using gendered language and gender expression in a way that does not fit their sex.
Since gender roles are so important in society, they have complicated people’s understanding of the sexes themselves, and of gendered language, as applied to humans. Some people have been able to form the notion that being a woman requires certain social expressions and behaviors, perhaps even more strongly than belonging to the female sex.
Nevertheless, it is clear from examination of a sufficient number of particular cases of gender roles, that the original intention of gender roles was to discriminate people by sex. So, when persons have been able to fit socially into the gender roles of the other sex, they have been running afoul of the spirit of the norms – a kind of action which I shall call, subverting gender roles.
4. The revolution
The revolution was born quietly. The way I understand it is as follows.
Some persons had a mental condition which made them believe that they really belonged to the other sex, despite their visible body parts. It is possible, after all, for a male to fail to be born with a penis in various situations. What happened in cases of this mental condition is that a true female – a member of the female sex – would believe herself to be one such male. She would not think that her vagina is a penis, for instance, but rather that her penis is missing somehow.
In order to accommodate persons with this mental condition, and make them feel more comfortable, some people took to allowing them to use the gendered language and gender expression that fit their ideas, and going along with it.
But since the point of this accommodation was, after all, to help some people feel better, there was no reason to restrict this to persons who did have the particular mental condition. The door was opened to various persons requesting the accommodation for various reasons.
Such are now known as transgender persons. They do not necessarily have any particular mental characteristics in common; the only thing that they have in common is their use of gendered language and gender expression in a way that does not fit their sex, and their request that society go along with this, therefore allowing them to fit into the gender roles of the other sex, that is, to subvert gender roles.
Since people expect that language does nevertheless refer to something about the objects to which it refers, the idea was devised that gendered language actually refers to “the gender”, or “the gender identity”, of persons, which is distinct from their sex, and in fact separate from their sex in the case of transgender persons. This idea took off easily, since, again, gender roles had already remarkably complicated the ideas of many persons about the true point of gendered language and expression, and of the meaning of the sexes themselves, as applied to humans.
But since transgender persons only have in common the fact that they use gendered language and gender expression in a new way, which does not fit their sex, attempts to understand “gender identity” in terms of psychology, or in other terms, must fail to apply to all transgender persons; each person, after all, has unique motives to desire the language accommodation, although the mental condition remains a prominent one.
This is a revolution because, of course, its necessary result is a massive increase in cases of subversion of gender roles. The old norms and customs are being overturned before our eyes.
5. In favor of the revolution
The main benefit of the revolution is that various persons are made to feel better by getting the accommodations in language, expression, and treatment, that they desire. This is the main reason for passive acceptance of the revolution. People do it out of compassion.
Those who are more strongly in favor of the revolution must also believe that gender roles were all, necessarily, intrinsically unjust. As they would see it, it is wrong to treat someone differently because of his sex. Therefore, the old norms and customs should be overturned, and it is high time that they were, and the new use of language is helping with this, although, ideally, even gendered language and gender expression should be made irrelevant to someone’s social treatment. Such seems to be the opinion of the more self-conscious supporters of the revolution.
6. Against the revolution
Some persons are against the revolution, because they support at least some of the old traditional gender roles. While they may be in favor of their reform, they oppose a revolution in language which must eventually result in their total eradication, in spirit – their permanent failure, forevermore, to discriminate persons by sex.
The most popular old gender role norm to be supported is the distinction of the sexes in sports. More traditionalist persons may also wish to emphasize that members of the female sex really are better fitted to the roles of mother and wife, and that members of the male sex really are better fitted to the roles of father and husband, as society has understood them.
I believe that it makes the most sense for Catholics to be against the revolution, since, after all, a valid Catholic marriage is still, and will always be, between two persons of opposite sexes. It is more difficult to seek such a thing in a society where people’s sexes are not reliably communicated socially, and are sometimes even thought to be an intimate, private matter; which seems to be the end result of the revolution, if it succeeds.
7. Using words today
Gendered language may still be used unambiguously in referring to what are called cisgender persons, i.e., persons who are not transgender, and do not request any accommodation of language. But when speaking of transgender persons, the question arises of whether to accept the demands of the revolution, or to deny them.
I believe that the most important end of language is truth. So, if your audience is composed entirely of supporters of the revolution, you ought to speak in the way that they understand. If your audience is composed entirely of opposers of the revolution, you should do likewise. Try not to confuse people.
More often, your speech will be public, and toward a necessarily mixed audience. Ideally, you will make clarifications to accommodate both usages, where it is relevant, so that no one is misled by your words. But where it is not relevant, and where there is not enough space, you must stick to a single usage of gendered words, and hope that your readers will realize that this is your usual usage, and that it reflects your opinion regarding the revolution.
I think such cases are rarer than may be thought. It is often perfectly possible to use a single extra word to say “trans woman”, which makes it clear to persons on both sides that you are speaking of a member of the male sex who has requested the language accommodation. But strong supporters of the revolution may refrain from doing so even where it is possible, since this hinders the achievement of the final goal of the revolution, which is to make the sex of persons into a purely private matter. I believe that such persons sometimes do so at the risk of misleading others, and that in doing so, they embody a deceitful attitude, which is morally reprehensible.
But, anyway, there really are some cases where you must use a single gendered term without any clarification. Pick your side and stick with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment