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
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.
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.
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.
Brilliant breakdown of how word-to-world reversal undermines legal coherence. The shift from descriptve language to prescriptive identity terms didnt happen by accident, it was strategic. When legal categories become subordinated to subjective claims, the entire framework of sex-based protections collapses. Saw this same pattern play out in Title IX enforcement last few years.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Brilliant breakdown of how word-to-world reversal undermines legal coherence. The shift from descriptve language to prescriptive identity terms didnt happen by accident, it was strategic. When legal categories become subordinated to subjective claims, the entire framework of sex-based protections collapses. Saw this same pattern play out in Title IX enforcement last few years.
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