Let’s stop polluting our language with the word “gender.” Corruption of the English language was Point A on the road to President Obama’s directive to de-privatize and de-sex all school restrooms nationwide. The ploy that got us all into the lazy habit of using the empty term “gender” in place of the accurate word “sex” has its roots in gender ideology, which cultural Marxists pushed for many decades. Since cultural Marxism is nothing but nihilism, it shouldn’t surprise us that “gender” can mean whatever you want or don’t want it to mean. In other words, there’s no there there.
George Orwell’s classic 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” discusses how easily language can be a tool of political manipulation. Here’s a great excerpt that I think shows us how we got to today’s state of confusion:
A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible.
Don’t you love Orwell’s positive note here, that the process is reversible? If we inject proper usage back into the language, the habit can catch on, and our thoughts can become clearer.
Orwell continues: “Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration.” Let’s hear it for political regeneration!
But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better.
A lot of us who do know better—including yours truly—have fallen into the silly habit of substituting the weaponized word “gender” for the precise word “sex.” Now there’s hell to pay, since it’s infecting all manner of legislation and legal documents—all in the name of “equality,” another term that’s become equal to nothing.
Let’s recall that the most accurate usage of the term “gender” is strictly grammatical, as when referring to noun and adjective declensions in foreign languages that assign gender to its words. Yes, yes, I know the dictionary has assigned new and “richer” meanings to the term “gender,” having to do with society, culture, and identity. This is totally political. Dictionaries have been turned into political minefields by activists in this war on mind and body. We should all be able to see through this by now.
How Money Replaced ‘Sex’ with ‘Gender’
Apparently, the substitution of the word “sex” with the vague word “gender” was the hobbyhorse of John Money back in the 1950s. Money was the corrupt sexologist who is most notorious for utterly ruining the life of David Reimer by talking his parents into raising David as a girl after a botched circumcision left him without a penis. Money drooled at the chance to experiment on little David because David happened to have an identical twin brother who could serve as a control for Money’s little inquest. In the 1970s, feminists took off with Money’s new lexicon, and we’ve been sloppily repeating the word “gender” ever since.
“Gender” doesn’t mean anything concrete when applied to human identity because “gender identity” is all about a state of mind that’s not rooted in any objective reality. Sex, on the other hand, is quite definitely rooted in physical reality. Yet when “sex” makes an appearance in “gender identity non-discrimination laws,” it is masked as something that doesn’t exist in reality. A standard definition of “gender” is that it means someone’s perception of self (as male, female, both, or neither) “whether or not it aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth.” Part of the premise of transgender law is to get you to believe that your sex was erroneously—and even maliciously—“assigned” to you at birth.
Jurisdiction after jurisdiction has signed on to that canard. It forces onto us a fraudulent premise that denies the reality of our own physical bodies. Ten Republican U.S. senators even signed on to this ridiculously false premise back in 2013. Neat trick, no? We now have hundreds of jurisdictions nationwide with laws that de-sex us. They essentially tell us that biological sex is not something any of us are, but something we have. Or don’t have.
In the past we recognized sex at birth or identified sex at birth. (Today we can identify it well before birth.) But now—voila!—our laws say sex is assigned to us at birth. How insane is that?
To be human is to be male or female. To be human is to be the living, breathing union of one male and one female. No exceptions. This is the case whether you are male or female or intersex, and, yes, even if you identify as transgender. Furthermore, our sex is not a body part. It is inscribed into the DNA of every cell in our bodies.
Denying the reality of one’s biological sex is, in a real sense, a denial of one’s whole body and mind. As society and its laws cover up these facts, we stray closer to a society that can decline to recognize the full humanity of any human being. This is not a good place to be. Not for anybody, including the LGBT folks who are being used as pawns to commit this virtual crime against humanity.
So what happens if we replace in our laws a concrete word like “sex” with an abstraction like “gender”? Can sex distinctions still legally exist?
The Flesh Made Word
British philosopher Daniel Moody recently published a slim volume that analyzes some of the linguistic sorcery that has muddled so much thinking about human reality today. Language, he notes, is our interpreter between the realm of reality and the realm of law. So when words in law no longer point to reality, we end up living under false law. In his work, titled “The Flesh Made Word,” Moody boldly explores how the invention of “gender” necessitates ejecting physical sex from man-made law.
The book is a wild ride through the looking glass of what Moody might call “gender-land,” a place where anti-reality and nothingness replaces what we’ve heretofore always known to be real. Instead of recognizing our bodies, the law grants us “permission to haunt our bodies.” Moody asks, “What would happen if we were to house inside legality an idea which contradicted reality with regard to the nature of the human body?” Would our bodies even exist in the eyes of this false law?
Our bodies in transgender law are represented by words that do not point to any realities about our wholeness as human beings. That’s because “sex and gender are as far apart conceptually as is possible,” according to Moody. “Sex and gender are linked only by the thin threads of language and the human mind. Like an atomic bomb vaporizing bodies and leaving only shadows.”
In this sense, we are not being governed by a law that reflects reality, even though we may think we are. Instead, we are living under false law that only allows the word “gender”—which signifies the absence of our physical sex—to define us.
In this sense, transgender law makes us legally invisible: “Man has been ejected from man-made law.” Indeed, to neuter everybody legally—which is what transgender law does—is to disregard the wholeness of every human being, to disregard each human’s origins. Moody’s assessment investigates just how such a linguistic time bomb operates.
Lexical Tips For Sanity
Social engineers’ language manipulation is always intentional from the outset. In this case, it was intended to muddle our thinking so “gender” would “borrow” from reality without being at all attached to it.
So the goals for those who wish to re-anchor to the world of reality are: stand firm, attach language to reality, and reject anti-reality—and to do so with good cheer, without any intent to offend. Herein follow some modest suggestions to help reclaim the language.
DO use the word “sex” in place of the slippery term “gender.” The main effect of gender ideology is to replace sex, a word that points to something real and recognizable, with “gender,” which exists only in a person’s mind. Succumbing to usage of the term “gender” is a trap that sucks you into Orwellian anti- reality.
DO consider scratching the term “gender” off forms, and replace it with “sex” before checking the box, whenever possible. You are a sex: male or female. Again, gender doesn’t really exist except in any given person’s mind, and is ever-changeable. In this way, you can also reclaim your body in documentation.
DON’T play the gender game. Example: “I don’t have a gender. But my sex is female. Rather, I am female.” Another example: “I don’t have a ‘gender identity.’ I do have a human identity which is whole and complex. I happen to be male because that happens to be the sex I am.”
DON’T get sucked into the mind game of “cisgender.” Cisgender is a totally weaponized term that forces even more de-sexing in society. It’s also a pejorative term that is supposed to mean that your mind just so happens to allow your “assigned sex” to exist alongside your “gender identity.” In gender ideology, a cisgender person is inferior to a transgender person.
Politely insist you are the male sex or the female sex, which actually matches up with your chromosomes. Period. Since the prefix “cis” means “on the same side as” (as opposed to “trans,” which means to cross over), perhaps you can cheerfully add that you are “cis-reality.”
DON’T say “gender neutral.” DO use other more accurate terms, such as “de-sexed” or “de-privatized bathrooms.” “De-sex” is particularly accurate when referring to what the state is doing to every one of us when transgender law insists that the term “gender” is superior to the reality-based term “sex.” Example: “The phrase ‘sex assigned at birth’ de-sexes us.” “Unisex” is far preferable to “gender neutral” in referring to clothing styles or hairstyles or any other material things that uniformly apply to both sexes.
DON’T say “gender non-conforming.” “Sex-non-conforming” is more accurate. The transgender idea, after all, is not to conform to the verified reality of the male or female sex.
DON’T get trapped in conflating intersex with “gender identity.” Intersex people are not transgender, though transgender activists use them to promote the agenda of gender ideology. The fact that anomalies exist in nature doesn’t cancel out the realities of nature, but actually accentuates them. Every single human being—male, female, intersex, or transgender—got here the same way: through the union of one male and one female.
When introduced to someone, DO agree to use that person’s preferred name, whether or not he or she identifies as transgender. A preferred name is just that: a name or nickname someone says he or she likes to be called. Unless you are being asked to call someone a name you feel is offensive or obscene, there is no reason not to refer to someone by his or her preferred name. This is not a major concession, even if the person is not well. This is simply an act of goodwill, and can open the door to communication.
DON’T get sucked into the chaos of pronoun protocols. Unless a transgender individual is within earshot and needs to be humored, we should not feel compelled to use his or her preferred pronoun. Few understand how deep this rabbit hole is becoming, with more individuals insisting on being referred to in the plural: as “they” or “ze.” More are what Walt Heyer calls “gender defiant,” which is a more accurate term than “gender non-conforming.” The goal is only to sow confusion.
A caveat: Your employer may require you to comply, and you should avoid placing your job in jeopardy. But as much as possible, keep your mind clear. Save your energy. Use your best judgment and consideration for others’ feelings (and obsessions or mental state) as well as your employer’s policies to decide the best course of action. Awareness of language manipulation is key. Remember: these laws aren’t about protecting transgender individuals. They are about controlling everybody else.
DO always respect the dignity of each and every human being. The growth of transgender phenomenon shouldn’t surprise us at all. It’s another manifestation of so much brokenness in modern society. Family breakdown hurts children far more than we care to admit. Community breakdown follows.
When brokenness and alienation set in, more people resort to wearing masks and personas of various kinds. A persona is a coping mechanism, and the noxious effects of social media and communications technologies only makes this more contagious and intense. Most transgender individuals are being used as pawns in an increasingly obvious scheme to grow government at the expense of everybody’s civil liberties, including their own. So be kind to people, especially as they show kindness to you.
DO point out inconsistencies in the logic of “gender identity anti-discrimination laws” whenever you can. Insist that age identity and race identity be added to protected categories. Non-discrimination on the basis of “identity” should play out in more than one way. I’ve been saying for a while that age-identity discrimination is far more widespread and endemic than any other kind. I, for one, don’t identify with the age I was “assigned at birth,” and have experienced discrimination based on this. Timing is everything, and we are at such a critical mass now with these dangerous laws, that it’s time to call the bluff of the government-corporate complex.
DO stand with those who speak out for truth and freedom as much as you are able. You would be surprised how emboldening this can be, not just to the person who was the first to speak out but to others who would follow suit if they knew they weren’t alone. The whole point of political correctness is to make you feel all alone in your thoughts.
One more time: Let’s stop saying the word “gender” and revive the word “sex.” Submission to “gender” terminology is futile. Only resistance will work. So start using the word “sex” to help yourself and others clarify language, and thereby restore our ability to think.