Semantics are widely applied in politics when trying to project a particular narrative. For example, many of us boomers remember the term “pacification” being used to describe bombing an adversary to smithereens. In today’s “gender wars,” we are being subjected to semantic carpet bombing.
People with gender dysphoria have always existed and have generated little controversy. Most of us are sympathetic to those who suffer from the condition, as it must be difficult.
But what has generated much of the current bitter dispute is the use of political semantics by strident activists in the media to try and forcibly remake a society that is largely content with the current binary gender structure, which we have maintained since coming down out of the trees.
Now we are constantly being lectured that “gender” is different than “sex,” and that the terms “man” and “woman” are based on subjective gender “identity,” rather than on biological sex.
Traditionally, “gender” was synonymous with “sex,” as in having either male or female anatomical and biological characteristics. The term “gender” was occasionally expanded to also refer to the behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits associated with either of the sexes. But recently, it has been further expanded to refer to multiple identities, with the “discovery” of a number of newly identified genders, some unconnected to sex. We are told that we must abandon the association of gender with binary sex.
Some medical authorities have compliantly jumped on the bandwagon, recognizing new genders like “genderqueer,” “nonbinary,” and “agender.” However, unlike most other medical classifications, these new gender identities are largely subjective, self-reported, and self-assigned personal feelings, not based on empirically verifiable research and rigorous science. I have yet to hear of a scientific researcher dashing from his lab to exclaim, “Eureka! I’ve discovered a new gender!”
“Gender” now seems to describe increasingly numerous, narrowly focused classifications. For example, I recently read of transgendered people with autism declaring themselves to be their own distinct gender. What does “gender” even mean now? If not biological sex, what are the objective characteristics that are used to assign and categorize a gender, and distinguish it from other variable human characteristics?
With the rapid increase in the number of “genders,” even the activists have given up trying to keep track, and have instead merely added the “plus” to LGBTQ-plus to cover them all.
Not surprisingly, many of us conservatives are skeptical. This expansion of the term “gender” to encompass such a broad range of newly discovered “identities” seems to be more of an exercise in semantics than true taxonomy. The fact that most of this is coming from young people does nothing to reassure us, as we recall being young and governed by continually changing feelings. Relying upon even the most sincere and heartfelt feelings of a 15-year-old is like building a house on shifting sand dunes.
We are wary of having substantive classifications based on subjective feelings, such as allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports, based merely upon how they identify. We don’t understand how identification can negate objective physical advantages and see the dramatic successes of mediocre male athletes when they compete against biological women, as a validation of our skepticism. It seems Orwellian to decree that a subjective change in labeling changes physical reality, and allows them to fairly compete as women.
There is a lot of semantic mayhem being committed. For example, mandates to use the ungrammatical and often nonsensical personal pronouns adopted by teenagers, or hearing merely declining to adopt these new terms shrilly described as “harmful” or “transphobic.”
Use of the phrase “gender assigned at birth,” is another bit of semantic mischief. It suggests that, instead of medical personnel dutifully recording the physical characteristics present on a newborn, there is some fallible functionary with a clipboard at the hospital who is arbitrarily assigning genders to the tykes, and which must be occasionally corrected.
What is the point of this broad expansion of genders? Is this quest to categorize and classify every possible permutation of human sexuality as a separate gender actually an effort to validate and dignify what have traditionally been seen as fetishes and sexual idiosyncrasies?
Will the genders become so specific that eventually everyone will be considered as their own private gender? This might be appealing to a generation accustomed to being told that they are “special.” Where will this lead?
In comments to a previous column, I was criticized for making dumb “I identify as …” jokes, and for that I apologize. It is just too easy to mock the outlandish fictions and stilted semantics used, and the temptation to extend the tortured stances to even more absurd lengths is hard to resist. Sorry. I’ll try harder to give up the mocking and to control myself, but I’ll probably be unsuccessful. Δ
John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach who identifies as an award winning columnist hounded by Pulitzerphobic haters. Respond to his column with an opinion piece of your own emailed to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Aug 3-13, 2023.
John, I do believe that you’re the only guy I know who needs a lecture to understand the difference between “gender” and “sex.” So if you don’t mind, I’ll provide you with a lecture… nah, on second thought. I’ll just go ahead and ask, “Are you getting any GENDER lately?”
It is always amusing when you folks confidently cite your newly contrived and politically driven gender theories as incontrovertible proof that gender and sex are two different things. Binary gender based on sex was always accepted until you decided it shouldn’t be, and now you have taken it upon yourselves to “educate” the rest of us on your “discovery”. My question is, if gender is not based on sex, then what characteristics IS it based upon? What objective characteristic could an external observer look for when evaluating an individual to classify the gender of that person? What objective characteristics were used to discern all your newly “discovered” gender classifications? In reality, your version of “gender” is self-described and based upon the subjective and sometimes fleeting feelings of the individual, hardly a sound basis for scientific classification. Legitimate science and medicine is based upon objective, empirically verifiable data, and not “feelings”.