Defining "Trans" "Accurately" Now Gets You Banned From Twitter
What's actually meant is: (i) even if you define (ii) transgenderism in a way that's (iii) in accordance with Orwellian leftist orthodoxy, you can (iv) still be banned from Twitter.
That's to say: even if you write as if the current transgender mythology of the left were true, they can ban you anyway.
Of all the lunacy on parade here, one of the most glaring is the demand that we use 'transgender' or 'trans' where what's called for is 'transgenderism.' Even where English grammar* clearly calls for nominalizing the term, the Orwellian left has demanded that we ignore the rule...because it sounds "too medical." Or, at least, that was the last version of the demand I read. This isn't terribly substantive, especially compared to their other diktats. But it's notable in that it illustrates how micro their linguistic management can become. The fact that they've been able to force such an inane demand onto even those who are calling bullshit on them shows something about their social power--and something about the derangement of our public discussions and reasonings. This is of a piece with the imaginary sins of "deadnaming" and "misgendering."
So here's a true sentence: "For sixty years, Bruce Jenner was known as 'Bruce Jenner'; later, he elected to misrepresent himself as a woman, changed his name to 'Caitlyn,' underwent cosmetic surgery (e.g. received breast implants), and asked people to refer to him with feminine pronouns ('she', etc.)."
Apparently you aren't permitted two write that perfectly true sentence on account of "deadnaming" Jenner by using the same name he used for the first sixty years of his life, and "misgendering" him by using English correctly when referring to him. That's to say: though Big Tech still permits people to criticize transgender mythology in certain ways, one must speak as if TM is true while criticizing it.
As we all know--and as progressives gleefully remind us--Big Tech is permitted to censor. They aren't constrained by the First Amendment. I don't dispute that. However:
[1] This is yet another indicator of how thoroughly Orwellian progressivism is in the cultural driver's seat.
[2] It helps explain how the OL has gone so completely mad. Extremism and censorship (governmental and otherwise) feed on each other. Extremism tends to involve efforts to shut down opposition, and shutting down opposition always (I assert!) promotes extremism. Everything (!!) about the Orwellian left pushes it leftward. Its own social dynamics force it leftward, as progressives gain status by out-lefting each other. And they encounter fewer and fewer criticisms, criticism having been virtually outlawed.
The relevant Twitter-banning was for using the term "natal male" in conjunction with a man who misrepresents himself as a woman (NewNewSpeak translation: "transwoman"). So Big Tech has apparently decided that you aren't permitted to say, e.g., that Jenner was born male. Of course he still is male, because we don't (currently, anyway) have the medical technology to change a person's sex. So your natal sex is just your sex. Without very significant technological advances, if you're born male you'll die male. So to refer to someone's actual sex by calling it his "natal sex" is exactly the kind of PC beating-around-the-bush that--one would think--they want us to engage in. But PC terminology is so capricious and fashion-driven that even logical extension of it are commonly verboten.
And don't forget: a vote for the blue team is basically a vote to institutionalize this madness--and this type of madness. And that forces us to face a difficult choice, obviously.
*But this isn't really about grammar, is it? It's about semantics, not syntax, isn't it? I should know this, shouldn't I?
That's to say: even if you write as if the current transgender mythology of the left were true, they can ban you anyway.
Of all the lunacy on parade here, one of the most glaring is the demand that we use 'transgender' or 'trans' where what's called for is 'transgenderism.' Even where English grammar* clearly calls for nominalizing the term, the Orwellian left has demanded that we ignore the rule...because it sounds "too medical." Or, at least, that was the last version of the demand I read. This isn't terribly substantive, especially compared to their other diktats. But it's notable in that it illustrates how micro their linguistic management can become. The fact that they've been able to force such an inane demand onto even those who are calling bullshit on them shows something about their social power--and something about the derangement of our public discussions and reasonings. This is of a piece with the imaginary sins of "deadnaming" and "misgendering."
So here's a true sentence: "For sixty years, Bruce Jenner was known as 'Bruce Jenner'; later, he elected to misrepresent himself as a woman, changed his name to 'Caitlyn,' underwent cosmetic surgery (e.g. received breast implants), and asked people to refer to him with feminine pronouns ('she', etc.)."
Apparently you aren't permitted two write that perfectly true sentence on account of "deadnaming" Jenner by using the same name he used for the first sixty years of his life, and "misgendering" him by using English correctly when referring to him. That's to say: though Big Tech still permits people to criticize transgender mythology in certain ways, one must speak as if TM is true while criticizing it.
As we all know--and as progressives gleefully remind us--Big Tech is permitted to censor. They aren't constrained by the First Amendment. I don't dispute that. However:
[1] This is yet another indicator of how thoroughly Orwellian progressivism is in the cultural driver's seat.
[2] It helps explain how the OL has gone so completely mad. Extremism and censorship (governmental and otherwise) feed on each other. Extremism tends to involve efforts to shut down opposition, and shutting down opposition always (I assert!) promotes extremism. Everything (!!) about the Orwellian left pushes it leftward. Its own social dynamics force it leftward, as progressives gain status by out-lefting each other. And they encounter fewer and fewer criticisms, criticism having been virtually outlawed.
The relevant Twitter-banning was for using the term "natal male" in conjunction with a man who misrepresents himself as a woman (NewNewSpeak translation: "transwoman"). So Big Tech has apparently decided that you aren't permitted to say, e.g., that Jenner was born male. Of course he still is male, because we don't (currently, anyway) have the medical technology to change a person's sex. So your natal sex is just your sex. Without very significant technological advances, if you're born male you'll die male. So to refer to someone's actual sex by calling it his "natal sex" is exactly the kind of PC beating-around-the-bush that--one would think--they want us to engage in. But PC terminology is so capricious and fashion-driven that even logical extension of it are commonly verboten.
And don't forget: a vote for the blue team is basically a vote to institutionalize this madness--and this type of madness. And that forces us to face a difficult choice, obviously.
*But this isn't really about grammar, is it? It's about semantics, not syntax, isn't it? I should know this, shouldn't I?
posted by Winston Smith at
8:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home