I see it in action in my job. Yesterday met a girl, trans identity, very boyish, wants to medically transition. She is same sex attracted but sees herself as male. Everyone refers to her as if she was male. Trauma, tick, neurodiverse, tick, lesbian, tick, threatens suicide to parents and everyone else if transition questioned and pronouns denied, tick. This was a lovely, vulnerable child. It’s so so sad and horrific that trans is now so normalised. I challenge it, and treat it as a safeguarding concern, but my workplace celebrates and promotes it.
(A lesbian just won I’m a Jungle whatever it’s called, but it’s reported as first LGBTQ+ .. everything gay and lesbian is😡😡😡😡)
Thank you. Saves me saying it yet again. How many female foetuses are aborted in China and India for societal and religious reasons. If sex was assigned at birth, this would not be possible but we know it is. Language is do important, whether spoken or signed.
I would also note the aspect of performed ‘religious’ (belief based) pronoun use. The use of the term ‘Cis’ is an invention that not only denotes allegiance and congregation to a ‘church’ of the gender religion; it also supersedes other ‘true’ or long held cultural religious beliefs. In other words; forcing the use of these pronouns are culturally insensitive to the point of blasphemy for many faiths. Often the performance of these ‘Gender’ pronouns have become normative at the point of threat by captured institutes, organisations and businesses.. you may be penalised for not performing them.
Additional to the cultural insensitivity and offences some believed are intentionally designed to undermine traditional faiths, there are also issues of utility when considering marginalised sections of society from those with mental, intellectual or learning disabilities (ie try telling a person with Aspergers to perform contra-speech and they will tell you exactly why they see an irregularity in them). Additionally those who are Bi-lingual, those with a first language other than English, those with a latinate background whose language is directly designed to ‘sex’ both nouns and pro-nouns and those with limited speech capacity which also includes children will all find complexities in the contradiction of these new (false) ‘religious’ belief based gender terms.
In mental health, dealing with patients with speech issues are normally categorised into 2 specific capability based assignments. They are based on ‘talk down’ and ‘talk up’ ability measures. Some psychological disorders require ‘talk down’, which is where the reality of the individual isn't questioned but indulged in based on their lack of capacity to recover and their diminished ability to deal with reality (late onset Alzheimer’s or dementia would qualify).
‘Talk up’ would be based on a capacity to relearn, recover and improve (such as a mild mental break or mild brain injury) and try to re-establish reason and reality. Given that we are discussing Gender Dysphoria as a mental health issue within EOGD (Early Onset Gender Dysphoria), should not the proper protocol (given that 80% of Dysphoric Children will desist and likely identify as LGB with a proportion having learning difficulties) be that we have a societal ‘Talk up’ policy, and not indulge in a mental health condition that includes a reality denial of sex, self harm, sexualisation of minors and suicide ideation?
The language issues around dealing with the disabled are a key to understanding how we perform language. At the very least the new norms of gender speech should be evaluated based of setting. Schools for example, may best avoid ‘Talking down’ for issues of development whilst mental health settings may see things differently, though I struggle to see why unless the Gender Dysphoria is linguistically attended to according to a perception that this outlook on an individual basis, in non-recoverable.
Great post. I agree with everything you say, but some serious proof reading is needed not only for this post but most posts I see these days on anyone's site.
"Assigned at birth" is another inappropriate appropriation of trans imperialism. It comes from the language of DSDs ("intersex") and was never intended to be used for anyone but that 0.0182 percent of humanity with actual, real, not-imaginary genital ambiguities.
Another insightful and reflective piece of sanity. Do not use their words, as you have said. Terrifying what you say about the natives being conquered by using the language of the conqueror, only in this case, we cannot, absolutely cannot allow these fetishists, these sex deniers and medicalised, infantilised tyrants be the conquerors. That will be the end of our civilization.
I agree that the words we use, or don't use, are hugely important. It was hearing the word "cis" on the radio that first alerted me to this and caused me to look further into it. I do like "evidence-based rationalist". Much better term for people who reject this contagion.
I think a word might be missing in this sentence: “Change language you reality.” (I usually DM things like this but Substack doesn’t have that feature.)
Absolutely spot on. I would add that using "personal pronouns" the way they are now used, as well as the word "cis," is making these words into indicators of one's internal thoughts. That is, by announcing I am a "she/her," I am supposed to be letting the world know what I think of myself -that I agree that I am actually "female" - whatever that now means. And if I say I am "cis," that also indicates that I am in some way at peace with my biological sex. Why in the world do we need to put our thoughts on our femininity/masculinity and comfort level with sex stereotypes, or comfort with our primary and/or secondary sex characteristics, out there for the world to see in our emails? Why would we introduce these thoughts to strangers (in a "hello, my pronouns are xx" situation - which apparently is required in many schools). I am an attorney. If I went to Court, I would not see any need for a Judge or the attorney I am opposing to know what I think about my sex, my level of femininity or masculinity or my comfort level with the sex specific aspects of my body. It's an absurdity. We need to stop the practice of "personal pronouns," and stop using the word "cis" outside of a psychological discussion of our beliefs about whether we are truly suited to our biological sex. Further, "cis" is a highly charged word, since most people (and, in particular, homosexual or gender non-conforming people, but, really, most people to one degree or another) have some level of discomfort that will vary from time to time and situationally regarding the sexual aspects of our bodies. There is no bright line, where some people are comfortable in their bodies and others are not. The only way "cis" would be an appropriate label is if we buy into the notion that some people are "born trans," which would mean some people were born with the obvious, inescapable need to chemically and/or surgically alter their bodies to appear as the opposite sex, or at least attempt to appear as the opposite sex and be seen as such by others, to ever have any semblance of happiness or mental stability. And that is not a notion that I see any evidence of being real.
These word games are causing young people to reject their healthy bodies and seek out unnecessary, dangerous chemical and surgical treatments that will harm their overall health, as well as their mental health. Thank you for continuing to write about this terrible societal wrong.
This is another reason autistic kids are getting caught up in this so easily. We autistics aren't good at processing communication, and we famously take things very literally and in strict black-and-white terms. So if adults are dinning into kids' heads that "trans women ARE women", they will believe that, without any nuance or understanding of the speakers' motives.
Bullseye! Postmodernist obfuscation always said language is the creator of reality rather than the descriptor of reality, and the gender cult is the attempt to realize the theory in practice. That's why it is top down imposed rather than as with any authentic civil rights movement, spontaneously grown from the grass roots.
Cis is a knotty one. We can quickly agree never to use the cis abomination and the first two sentences in this section I would unhesitatingly nod toward, but I'm balking a little at: "Some language represents a concession, if you say you are “gender critical” (as I’ve argued before), you accept there is a real thing called “gender” and you are a critic of it". Because whether or not there is a "thing" known as gender, there is definitely an idea referred to as gender, and this idea it is perfectly possible if not utterly necessary to be critical of. Insofar as it makes sense for example to say that personality is a real thing, I don't really see anything particularly controversial in saying gender is a real thing too - indeed it is surely a personality trait? Gender identity however is something else completely and this is really what we mean when we say we are "gender critical". We are critical of the completely scientifically unfounded dogma that human beings are born with some genetically encoded psychic self knowledge which tells us which gender roles we are built to perform in our lives, before we have even learned to speak and interact with the world around us. As you write it is impossible to have a gender on a desert island because gender only exists in the relation between human beings as individuals or in groupings. You wouldn't have a gender identity on a desert island either because you'd have no knowledge of which roles are available to perform; your only identity would be that of human because that you would be able to differentiate from the identities of the other creatures on the island. Cis is the lie which tries to sell you the delusory fiction that you are born with an innate identity as a kind of internal oracle which determines which gender path you would take if you were free to do so even on a desert island where gender models did not exist. Which leads smoothly to the aberration that if you don't 'feel' cis then you must be trans. You were born with a gender identity which doesn't 'match' your body. And that nonsense is of course a Pandora's box.
Perhaps we'd achieve a truer language fidelity if we called ourselves "gender ideology atheists"?
I see it in action in my job. Yesterday met a girl, trans identity, very boyish, wants to medically transition. She is same sex attracted but sees herself as male. Everyone refers to her as if she was male. Trauma, tick, neurodiverse, tick, lesbian, tick, threatens suicide to parents and everyone else if transition questioned and pronouns denied, tick. This was a lovely, vulnerable child. It’s so so sad and horrific that trans is now so normalised. I challenge it, and treat it as a safeguarding concern, but my workplace celebrates and promotes it.
(A lesbian just won I’m a Jungle whatever it’s called, but it’s reported as first LGBTQ+ .. everything gay and lesbian is😡😡😡😡)
Spot on, Dennis. Such a relief to have GMN and the LGB Alliance in our corner.
Thank you. Saves me saying it yet again. How many female foetuses are aborted in China and India for societal and religious reasons. If sex was assigned at birth, this would not be possible but we know it is. Language is do important, whether spoken or signed.
I would also note the aspect of performed ‘religious’ (belief based) pronoun use. The use of the term ‘Cis’ is an invention that not only denotes allegiance and congregation to a ‘church’ of the gender religion; it also supersedes other ‘true’ or long held cultural religious beliefs. In other words; forcing the use of these pronouns are culturally insensitive to the point of blasphemy for many faiths. Often the performance of these ‘Gender’ pronouns have become normative at the point of threat by captured institutes, organisations and businesses.. you may be penalised for not performing them.
Additional to the cultural insensitivity and offences some believed are intentionally designed to undermine traditional faiths, there are also issues of utility when considering marginalised sections of society from those with mental, intellectual or learning disabilities (ie try telling a person with Aspergers to perform contra-speech and they will tell you exactly why they see an irregularity in them). Additionally those who are Bi-lingual, those with a first language other than English, those with a latinate background whose language is directly designed to ‘sex’ both nouns and pro-nouns and those with limited speech capacity which also includes children will all find complexities in the contradiction of these new (false) ‘religious’ belief based gender terms.
In mental health, dealing with patients with speech issues are normally categorised into 2 specific capability based assignments. They are based on ‘talk down’ and ‘talk up’ ability measures. Some psychological disorders require ‘talk down’, which is where the reality of the individual isn't questioned but indulged in based on their lack of capacity to recover and their diminished ability to deal with reality (late onset Alzheimer’s or dementia would qualify).
‘Talk up’ would be based on a capacity to relearn, recover and improve (such as a mild mental break or mild brain injury) and try to re-establish reason and reality. Given that we are discussing Gender Dysphoria as a mental health issue within EOGD (Early Onset Gender Dysphoria), should not the proper protocol (given that 80% of Dysphoric Children will desist and likely identify as LGB with a proportion having learning difficulties) be that we have a societal ‘Talk up’ policy, and not indulge in a mental health condition that includes a reality denial of sex, self harm, sexualisation of minors and suicide ideation?
The language issues around dealing with the disabled are a key to understanding how we perform language. At the very least the new norms of gender speech should be evaluated based of setting. Schools for example, may best avoid ‘Talking down’ for issues of development whilst mental health settings may see things differently, though I struggle to see why unless the Gender Dysphoria is linguistically attended to according to a perception that this outlook on an individual basis, in non-recoverable.
Great post. I agree with everything you say, but some serious proof reading is needed not only for this post but most posts I see these days on anyone's site.
"Assigned at birth" is another inappropriate appropriation of trans imperialism. It comes from the language of DSDs ("intersex") and was never intended to be used for anyone but that 0.0182 percent of humanity with actual, real, not-imaginary genital ambiguities.
Another insightful and reflective piece of sanity. Do not use their words, as you have said. Terrifying what you say about the natives being conquered by using the language of the conqueror, only in this case, we cannot, absolutely cannot allow these fetishists, these sex deniers and medicalised, infantilised tyrants be the conquerors. That will be the end of our civilization.
I agree that the words we use, or don't use, are hugely important. It was hearing the word "cis" on the radio that first alerted me to this and caused me to look further into it. I do like "evidence-based rationalist". Much better term for people who reject this contagion.
Great piece.
I think a word might be missing in this sentence: “Change language you reality.” (I usually DM things like this but Substack doesn’t have that feature.)
Absolutely spot on. I would add that using "personal pronouns" the way they are now used, as well as the word "cis," is making these words into indicators of one's internal thoughts. That is, by announcing I am a "she/her," I am supposed to be letting the world know what I think of myself -that I agree that I am actually "female" - whatever that now means. And if I say I am "cis," that also indicates that I am in some way at peace with my biological sex. Why in the world do we need to put our thoughts on our femininity/masculinity and comfort level with sex stereotypes, or comfort with our primary and/or secondary sex characteristics, out there for the world to see in our emails? Why would we introduce these thoughts to strangers (in a "hello, my pronouns are xx" situation - which apparently is required in many schools). I am an attorney. If I went to Court, I would not see any need for a Judge or the attorney I am opposing to know what I think about my sex, my level of femininity or masculinity or my comfort level with the sex specific aspects of my body. It's an absurdity. We need to stop the practice of "personal pronouns," and stop using the word "cis" outside of a psychological discussion of our beliefs about whether we are truly suited to our biological sex. Further, "cis" is a highly charged word, since most people (and, in particular, homosexual or gender non-conforming people, but, really, most people to one degree or another) have some level of discomfort that will vary from time to time and situationally regarding the sexual aspects of our bodies. There is no bright line, where some people are comfortable in their bodies and others are not. The only way "cis" would be an appropriate label is if we buy into the notion that some people are "born trans," which would mean some people were born with the obvious, inescapable need to chemically and/or surgically alter their bodies to appear as the opposite sex, or at least attempt to appear as the opposite sex and be seen as such by others, to ever have any semblance of happiness or mental stability. And that is not a notion that I see any evidence of being real.
These word games are causing young people to reject their healthy bodies and seek out unnecessary, dangerous chemical and surgical treatments that will harm their overall health, as well as their mental health. Thank you for continuing to write about this terrible societal wrong.
This is another reason autistic kids are getting caught up in this so easily. We autistics aren't good at processing communication, and we famously take things very literally and in strict black-and-white terms. So if adults are dinning into kids' heads that "trans women ARE women", they will believe that, without any nuance or understanding of the speakers' motives.
So well written! It’s particularly vital that we don’t use their language when talking to children.
To loosely quote Mr Menno ‘to say I am a cis man is up say I am a subcategory of man, .. I am a man!’
(Which also means a transman, if using this TRA language correctly is actually a transcisman …. Ie .. all utter nonsense & pure bullying).
Love your writing Dennis, from NZ, I know a few other Kiwi women who follow you too.
You put it beautifully into words
Bullseye! Postmodernist obfuscation always said language is the creator of reality rather than the descriptor of reality, and the gender cult is the attempt to realize the theory in practice. That's why it is top down imposed rather than as with any authentic civil rights movement, spontaneously grown from the grass roots.
Cis is a knotty one. We can quickly agree never to use the cis abomination and the first two sentences in this section I would unhesitatingly nod toward, but I'm balking a little at: "Some language represents a concession, if you say you are “gender critical” (as I’ve argued before), you accept there is a real thing called “gender” and you are a critic of it". Because whether or not there is a "thing" known as gender, there is definitely an idea referred to as gender, and this idea it is perfectly possible if not utterly necessary to be critical of. Insofar as it makes sense for example to say that personality is a real thing, I don't really see anything particularly controversial in saying gender is a real thing too - indeed it is surely a personality trait? Gender identity however is something else completely and this is really what we mean when we say we are "gender critical". We are critical of the completely scientifically unfounded dogma that human beings are born with some genetically encoded psychic self knowledge which tells us which gender roles we are built to perform in our lives, before we have even learned to speak and interact with the world around us. As you write it is impossible to have a gender on a desert island because gender only exists in the relation between human beings as individuals or in groupings. You wouldn't have a gender identity on a desert island either because you'd have no knowledge of which roles are available to perform; your only identity would be that of human because that you would be able to differentiate from the identities of the other creatures on the island. Cis is the lie which tries to sell you the delusory fiction that you are born with an innate identity as a kind of internal oracle which determines which gender path you would take if you were free to do so even on a desert island where gender models did not exist. Which leads smoothly to the aberration that if you don't 'feel' cis then you must be trans. You were born with a gender identity which doesn't 'match' your body. And that nonsense is of course a Pandora's box.
Perhaps we'd achieve a truer language fidelity if we called ourselves "gender ideology atheists"?
As ever clear and concise, thank you Dennis