This is so true and was described in 1984 as "newspeak." That can involve new words or new uses for existing words.
Put simply, in the case of "gender ideology," it includes, as you noted, the phrase "sex assigned at birth," as if that's happening. Most frequently, this involves replacing the word "sex" with the word "gender," which has the effect of confusing people about what's going on. If we called the medical interventions being foisted on young, vulnerable people "sex affirming care," I think a lot less people would be fighting for this to be done to 12-year-olds! If we spoke of "transsexual children and teens," again, few members of the general public would believe in such a thing.
If the Supreme Court justices and attorneys arguing in those two cases were saying "should transsexual males be placed in female sports?" I think a lot less people would be on the side of "inclusion."
And, if instead of saying we are deciding a controversial issue involving "banning transgender kids from sports," the phrasing was, accurately, "preventing trans-identified boys and men [or, better yet," preventing boys and men who are distressed about their sex or wish they were female"] "from participating in girls' and women's sports" - this would hardly be considered a controversy.
George Orwell, 1984, part 1, chapter 7: >In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.<
The only thing that Orwell got wrong was to think that this tyranny had to be imposed by a centralized one-party state. I don't think that he imagined that it would start in the universities and then spread into other institutions before seeping into law and politics. But he did get this much right: "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool." ("Notes on Nationalism," 1945)
Concur. I’ve been thinking for a while that the society we are living now is raising children on lies not science. Eventually, these lies may be concurred, but before they concurred they will damage many children who are pawns of today’s politics. This and the pseudo biology must be stopped . Jerry, thank you for your book
I am assuming you are Jerry Coyne of Why Evolution is True fame. I am curious if you read a letter to the editor by Shirley Ogletree (P 64-65) in a February-March issue of the Free Inquiry journal. The letter was written in response to the Richard Dawkins article Scientific Truth Stands Above Human Feelings and Politics, in the October-November issue. The letter, in my view, contains a bunch of gobbledygook. Would you be interested to respond to her letter in the next issue of the journal? Thank you.
While it was disappointing to hear the Court use activist language, there might be a method behind it.
I listened to the oral arguments live, and like most others, I came away with the sense that the justices weren't overly impressed with the ACLU's arguments. John Roberts seemed particularly surprised when one attorney refused to offer a definition of sex. but let's leave that to the side for a moment. If I'm a Supreme Court justice who views the ACLU's arguments with skepticism, isn't it better for me to adopt the ACLU's language? Doing so lets me dilute objections that I hate trans people or want a gender genocide or whatever. I mean, hey, I called Lindsey Hecox a trans woman, right?
I'd suggest none of us get hung up over the words the justices use, so long as their ruling serves our cause.
It may have been a strategy for some of the Justices. However, one Justice repeatedly referred to a “subgroup of females” that she was concerned could face discrimination. Her words referring to a “subgroup of females” went unchallenged.
She was proclaiming a group of males who identify as females are a subgroup of biological females. Biological males who identify as female remain biologically male, and no matter how great the distress they will remain male.
So called inclusive language is being used to change the definition of women from sex based to identity based, making a mockery of sex based rights and protections.
And, it was and is unnecessary. We could have policies and laws that are targeted to protect individuals housing, work, and safe spaces without erasing the meaning of sex based rights.
Such a valuable article! I have quoted/restacked parts of it and also shared the whole article in its entirety. May it circulate far and wide. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
You have stated this perfectly and made me a huge fan of yours. Sometimes this makes me feel like I've entered some sort of netherworld, where up is down and blue is red. The jingo "Transwomen are women!" is among the stupidest jingos ever made. And watching doctors squirm to say only females get pregnant is simply infuriating.
Exactly right, regarding captured language emerging from institutional capture. The crossdressing men originating these phrases and terms are expert sociopath narcissists who gaslight anyone and everyone who will give them the time of day. I know, I divorced one of them, and he continues to defame me while claiming to be "another mother;" he went so far as to claim he was the mother of our 2 sons and I was the nanny. After all, he's one of the "most oppressed" categories of human beings. I promote longer phrases that more accurately describe the psychiatric illness, such as: persons who ideate an opposite sex persona, or simply, crossdressing men. Describe the behavior, instead of giving it cult idol status. The story of the Golden Calf comes to mind.
Barrett is gonna want to fit in with her wine mom friends and impress her adolescent children, hence her usage of the term "transgender girls" on the actual bench. For low IQ justices like Jackson and Sotomayor, jargon is impressive to them and too easily confused with actual intelligence. All three justices are just different kinds of tools.
It’s not my heart to disparage anyone. However, when we have a Supreme Court Justice unable to confirm basic biological facts—-the psychological cancer runs deep and has infected most courts.
That should be a fact we can all agree impacts the current and next generations. Schools bypassing parents for corrupted state laws is sickening. What’s next? When a kid says the sky is green and not blue, we say, “yes, honey- the sky is green!”
I am not a psychological expert by any stretch. However, lying to children has a very high cost. It’s a price I was never willing to pay with mine. Speak the truth with as much love as possible—-but always speak truth.
It’s telling that you didn’t call out her obviously racist and indefensible comment about Jackson and Sotomayor, as Jackson has the best academic and professional pedigree on the court, but instead named Barrett in your defense and not the two most egregiously slandered.
Sorry, but you're the racist, as I cannot possibly be one for genetic reasons. I will call you out for jumping on an opportunity for some cheap virtue signaling though. I'm calling them out for their obviously low IQ's, and I am by far not the only person to notice this. Besides, modern "education" is 90% indoctrination, and certainly low IQ Jackson and Sotomayor thrived under those conditions. Because they didn't have to think very hard, only parrot back what their liberal professors wanted to hear. Which is what they are still doing on the bench.
What a stupid statement: "I cannot possibly be one for genetic reasons." You mean you have a gene that makes it impossible to perceive the concept of race? Anyone can be racist if they can understand the concept of race. Even if they couldn't perceive race they could still be racist.
Another stupid statement: "Besides, modern "education" is 90% indoctrination". No, it is absolutely not "90%", though I agree there is indoctrination in certain modern education, in greater percentages in some majors (and classes) than others.
The liberal Hyperpoliticization of higher education is a well known fact. Even searches on well scrubbed Google acknowledge it. Why are you all but pretending that it is not? Throwing out an.. 'okay, maybe, but..' lmao.
And why are you hell bent on putting me in a position where I must defend my race? Why are you obsessed with race? It's not about race. It's about something that the discussion of is EXTREMELY taboo in the 21st century. Even more so than race, which is one of the topics that has been weponized in order to prevent this very discussion.
It's about IQ. Which is why you will use anything at your disposal to deflect from that issue. But you can't accuse a black person of racism! What can you do? Get real. Touch on it. I know it's scary. You could start with Thomas Sowell. His presence on the Supreme Court would be the best thing that ever happened to this country.
You wrote "Hyperpoliticization of higher education". I have not disputed that. I have disputed your 90% number as stupid.
You wrote: "And why are you hell bent on putting me in a position where I must defend my race?
I am not. I have not put you into any position of having to defend your race. I have not commented on your race and have no interest in doing so.
You wrote: "Why are you obsessed with race? It's not about race. "
I am not. I have not commented on your race, nor any other person's race, and I don't have interest in doing so.
You wrote:"It's about IQ. Which is why you will use anything at your disposal to deflect from that issue. But you can't accuse a black person of racism! What can you do? Get real. Touch on it. I know it's scary. You could start with Thomas Sowell. His presence on the Supreme Court would be the best thing that ever happened to this country."
Why are you bringing this up *to me* at all? I have made no comments about IQ. I have not deflected from that issue -- I simply have not commented on it.
Then you wrote "But you can't accuse a black person of racism! "
That is absolutely ridiculous. Of course I can. Of course anyone can: if a person from any background were to engage in racism, they should be accused of having engaged in racism. I believe that Thomas Sowell would think very poorly of you if he were to know you claimed a black person can't be accused of racism.
You claimed Thomas Sowell would be be good on the Supreme Court. He would be terrible on the supreme court. He does not have the legal training. His training is more like economic theory.
You wrote " What can you do? Get real. Touch on it. I know it's scary. "
Touch on what? What do you mean "get real"? I am the one who has gotten real: Anyone can be racist regardless of their race, what universities are teaching is not 90% indoctrination.
I've not made any comments about anyone's IQ and don't have any interest in doing so at the moment.
I'm beginning to wonder if you're using AI to generate your response given how ridiculous it is and how irrelevant it is to my own comments.
No, it is telling that you chose to make a stupid and incorrect inference. I named justice Barrett since that was the first justice named. I also felt that was the most insulting of the three types of insults. As I got further down in my comment, I decided not to name all the justices from their comment. If they had written the exact same comment with the names Jackson and Barrett switched, then my comment would have included the name Jackson. Next time, rather than making a stupid comment like that, just ask why the person only named Barrett. I would have explained why.
Gimme a break. You can’t pretend you don’t know the Low IQ slander and it’s extremely consistent use on the right for minorities. Trump is the most egregious abuser of this.
Do you lack reading comprehension? I explained why I named Barrett. Period. My reasons not only had nothing to do with what you are saying, I did not even make any statements about them. If you are going to harass innocent commenters who have nothing to do with what you are talking about, you should leave this forum. I have my own opinions on the relative intelligence of the justices, which I have not expressed and do not intend to since it is not relevant. I would like an apology for your uncivilized behavior, since I already explained why I named only Barrett in my comment, and there is nothing to "Give you a break" about in my comment.
BPJ is endocrinologically and phenotypically female in any way that would be relevant to sports. pre transition early onset dysphoria trans girls also tend to be below female metrics in various measures and far below boys and have female normative sports participation patterns both before and after transition.
she is a subset of the female sex class by any sane metric relating to sports and any or all aspects of society. not that the natural law far right court will care. and will be even more clearly so once the remaining aspect of her male physiology is changed to female as an adult.
I was absolutely disgusted by the use of the phrase "transgender girls" at the Supreme Court.
These young people are not girls and therefore should be excluded from girls' sports.
This is so true and was described in 1984 as "newspeak." That can involve new words or new uses for existing words.
Put simply, in the case of "gender ideology," it includes, as you noted, the phrase "sex assigned at birth," as if that's happening. Most frequently, this involves replacing the word "sex" with the word "gender," which has the effect of confusing people about what's going on. If we called the medical interventions being foisted on young, vulnerable people "sex affirming care," I think a lot less people would be fighting for this to be done to 12-year-olds! If we spoke of "transsexual children and teens," again, few members of the general public would believe in such a thing.
If the Supreme Court justices and attorneys arguing in those two cases were saying "should transsexual males be placed in female sports?" I think a lot less people would be on the side of "inclusion."
And, if instead of saying we are deciding a controversial issue involving "banning transgender kids from sports," the phrasing was, accurately, "preventing trans-identified boys and men [or, better yet," preventing boys and men who are distressed about their sex or wish they were female"] "from participating in girls' and women's sports" - this would hardly be considered a controversy.
George Orwell, 1984, part 1, chapter 7: >In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.<
The only thing that Orwell got wrong was to think that this tyranny had to be imposed by a centralized one-party state. I don't think that he imagined that it would start in the universities and then spread into other institutions before seeping into law and politics. But he did get this much right: "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool." ("Notes on Nationalism," 1945)
I have made a concerted effort to keep only use reality based language for this reason.
Excellent piece. I agree completely and love the last paragraph.
Thank you! (I always forget to look at comments. Glad I saw this!)
Concur. I’ve been thinking for a while that the society we are living now is raising children on lies not science. Eventually, these lies may be concurred, but before they concurred they will damage many children who are pawns of today’s politics. This and the pseudo biology must be stopped . Jerry, thank you for your book
Why Evolution is True
Hello Dr. Coyne.
I am assuming you are Jerry Coyne of Why Evolution is True fame. I am curious if you read a letter to the editor by Shirley Ogletree (P 64-65) in a February-March issue of the Free Inquiry journal. The letter was written in response to the Richard Dawkins article Scientific Truth Stands Above Human Feelings and Politics, in the October-November issue. The letter, in my view, contains a bunch of gobbledygook. Would you be interested to respond to her letter in the next issue of the journal? Thank you.
While it was disappointing to hear the Court use activist language, there might be a method behind it.
I listened to the oral arguments live, and like most others, I came away with the sense that the justices weren't overly impressed with the ACLU's arguments. John Roberts seemed particularly surprised when one attorney refused to offer a definition of sex. but let's leave that to the side for a moment. If I'm a Supreme Court justice who views the ACLU's arguments with skepticism, isn't it better for me to adopt the ACLU's language? Doing so lets me dilute objections that I hate trans people or want a gender genocide or whatever. I mean, hey, I called Lindsey Hecox a trans woman, right?
I'd suggest none of us get hung up over the words the justices use, so long as their ruling serves our cause.
It may have been a strategy for some of the Justices. However, one Justice repeatedly referred to a “subgroup of females” that she was concerned could face discrimination. Her words referring to a “subgroup of females” went unchallenged.
She was proclaiming a group of males who identify as females are a subgroup of biological females. Biological males who identify as female remain biologically male, and no matter how great the distress they will remain male.
So called inclusive language is being used to change the definition of women from sex based to identity based, making a mockery of sex based rights and protections.
And, it was and is unnecessary. We could have policies and laws that are targeted to protect individuals housing, work, and safe spaces without erasing the meaning of sex based rights.
Such a valuable article! I have quoted/restacked parts of it and also shared the whole article in its entirety. May it circulate far and wide. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
Pamela:
Wonderful article. Thank you.
There is nothing "kind" or wonderful about being a supposedly warm, caring, air-head activist
who brings harm to people by attempting to throw truth and justice into a trash can.
You have stated this perfectly and made me a huge fan of yours. Sometimes this makes me feel like I've entered some sort of netherworld, where up is down and blue is red. The jingo "Transwomen are women!" is among the stupidest jingos ever made. And watching doctors squirm to say only females get pregnant is simply infuriating.
Exactly right, regarding captured language emerging from institutional capture. The crossdressing men originating these phrases and terms are expert sociopath narcissists who gaslight anyone and everyone who will give them the time of day. I know, I divorced one of them, and he continues to defame me while claiming to be "another mother;" he went so far as to claim he was the mother of our 2 sons and I was the nanny. After all, he's one of the "most oppressed" categories of human beings. I promote longer phrases that more accurately describe the psychiatric illness, such as: persons who ideate an opposite sex persona, or simply, crossdressing men. Describe the behavior, instead of giving it cult idol status. The story of the Golden Calf comes to mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3i2ug2zOiw&list=PLOFlPPQm71IiX8NjEVo6jSIwL6IYAtey0&index=20
Best piece I've read on the topic, and I've read a lot.
Brilliantly written
Barrett is gonna want to fit in with her wine mom friends and impress her adolescent children, hence her usage of the term "transgender girls" on the actual bench. For low IQ justices like Jackson and Sotomayor, jargon is impressive to them and too easily confused with actual intelligence. All three justices are just different kinds of tools.
Please do not make disparaging comments about individuals, like Justice Barrett, or any other justices. Please stick to the facts.
It’s not my heart to disparage anyone. However, when we have a Supreme Court Justice unable to confirm basic biological facts—-the psychological cancer runs deep and has infected most courts.
That should be a fact we can all agree impacts the current and next generations. Schools bypassing parents for corrupted state laws is sickening. What’s next? When a kid says the sky is green and not blue, we say, “yes, honey- the sky is green!”
I am not a psychological expert by any stretch. However, lying to children has a very high cost. It’s a price I was never willing to pay with mine. Speak the truth with as much love as possible—-but always speak truth.
I agree with you. I don't have any objection to discussing the issue. I only object to unsubstantiated disparagement of others.
Then you and I share that in common. I bless everyone and don’t curse them in any way. It’s not my lane and the Good Lord has made it clear.
Please do not monitor my speech. Please do not dictate what I can and cannot say. Thanks.
I'll monitor everyone's public speech if I feel like it. I didn't "dictate" what you can and cannot say, though frankly I would like to.
It’s telling that you didn’t call out her obviously racist and indefensible comment about Jackson and Sotomayor, as Jackson has the best academic and professional pedigree on the court, but instead named Barrett in your defense and not the two most egregiously slandered.
Sorry, but you're the racist, as I cannot possibly be one for genetic reasons. I will call you out for jumping on an opportunity for some cheap virtue signaling though. I'm calling them out for their obviously low IQ's, and I am by far not the only person to notice this. Besides, modern "education" is 90% indoctrination, and certainly low IQ Jackson and Sotomayor thrived under those conditions. Because they didn't have to think very hard, only parrot back what their liberal professors wanted to hear. Which is what they are still doing on the bench.
What a stupid statement: "I cannot possibly be one for genetic reasons." You mean you have a gene that makes it impossible to perceive the concept of race? Anyone can be racist if they can understand the concept of race. Even if they couldn't perceive race they could still be racist.
Another stupid statement: "Besides, modern "education" is 90% indoctrination". No, it is absolutely not "90%", though I agree there is indoctrination in certain modern education, in greater percentages in some majors (and classes) than others.
The liberal Hyperpoliticization of higher education is a well known fact. Even searches on well scrubbed Google acknowledge it. Why are you all but pretending that it is not? Throwing out an.. 'okay, maybe, but..' lmao.
And why are you hell bent on putting me in a position where I must defend my race? Why are you obsessed with race? It's not about race. It's about something that the discussion of is EXTREMELY taboo in the 21st century. Even more so than race, which is one of the topics that has been weponized in order to prevent this very discussion.
It's about IQ. Which is why you will use anything at your disposal to deflect from that issue. But you can't accuse a black person of racism! What can you do? Get real. Touch on it. I know it's scary. You could start with Thomas Sowell. His presence on the Supreme Court would be the best thing that ever happened to this country.
You wrote "Hyperpoliticization of higher education". I have not disputed that. I have disputed your 90% number as stupid.
You wrote: "And why are you hell bent on putting me in a position where I must defend my race?
I am not. I have not put you into any position of having to defend your race. I have not commented on your race and have no interest in doing so.
You wrote: "Why are you obsessed with race? It's not about race. "
I am not. I have not commented on your race, nor any other person's race, and I don't have interest in doing so.
You wrote:"It's about IQ. Which is why you will use anything at your disposal to deflect from that issue. But you can't accuse a black person of racism! What can you do? Get real. Touch on it. I know it's scary. You could start with Thomas Sowell. His presence on the Supreme Court would be the best thing that ever happened to this country."
Why are you bringing this up *to me* at all? I have made no comments about IQ. I have not deflected from that issue -- I simply have not commented on it.
Then you wrote "But you can't accuse a black person of racism! "
That is absolutely ridiculous. Of course I can. Of course anyone can: if a person from any background were to engage in racism, they should be accused of having engaged in racism. I believe that Thomas Sowell would think very poorly of you if he were to know you claimed a black person can't be accused of racism.
You claimed Thomas Sowell would be be good on the Supreme Court. He would be terrible on the supreme court. He does not have the legal training. His training is more like economic theory.
You wrote " What can you do? Get real. Touch on it. I know it's scary. "
Touch on what? What do you mean "get real"? I am the one who has gotten real: Anyone can be racist regardless of their race, what universities are teaching is not 90% indoctrination.
I've not made any comments about anyone's IQ and don't have any interest in doing so at the moment.
I'm beginning to wonder if you're using AI to generate your response given how ridiculous it is and how irrelevant it is to my own comments.
No, it is telling that you chose to make a stupid and incorrect inference. I named justice Barrett since that was the first justice named. I also felt that was the most insulting of the three types of insults. As I got further down in my comment, I decided not to name all the justices from their comment. If they had written the exact same comment with the names Jackson and Barrett switched, then my comment would have included the name Jackson. Next time, rather than making a stupid comment like that, just ask why the person only named Barrett. I would have explained why.
Gimme a break. You can’t pretend you don’t know the Low IQ slander and it’s extremely consistent use on the right for minorities. Trump is the most egregious abuser of this.
Do you lack reading comprehension? I explained why I named Barrett. Period. My reasons not only had nothing to do with what you are saying, I did not even make any statements about them. If you are going to harass innocent commenters who have nothing to do with what you are talking about, you should leave this forum. I have my own opinions on the relative intelligence of the justices, which I have not expressed and do not intend to since it is not relevant. I would like an apology for your uncivilized behavior, since I already explained why I named only Barrett in my comment, and there is nothing to "Give you a break" about in my comment.
How is it "slander" to call out actual supreme court justices for having glaringly low IQ's? Everyone has noticed by now!
BPJ is endocrinologically and phenotypically female in any way that would be relevant to sports. pre transition early onset dysphoria trans girls also tend to be below female metrics in various measures and far below boys and have female normative sports participation patterns both before and after transition.
she is a subset of the female sex class by any sane metric relating to sports and any or all aspects of society. not that the natural law far right court will care. and will be even more clearly so once the remaining aspect of her male physiology is changed to female as an adult.
Lmao