Stupid Hills
Sometimes I just really hate the way people talk
I am one of those very annoying people who loves to argue semantics and play devil’s advocate at inappropriate times, accidentally/on purpose pissing everyone off in the process of trying to die on very pointless hills. But, honestly, I think that people argue their points in really fucking stupid ways sometimes, and even when I agree with their conclusions, the fact that they got there in a way I find illogical is… annoying.
Let's talk about some of the nitpicky things that are currently annoying me. For this one, I’m going to be aiming (mostly) right.
People who complain that using “they/them” pronouns for an individual is not grammatically correct.
This is annoying because just about everyone already uses they/them pronouns for individuals when they don't know, or before they know, their gender. See, I just did it right there and I didn't even mean to.
In writing, using “he or she” or, even worse, just picking one or switching them at random, is clunky or can feel weird as a reader, respectively. I have been in heated debates with other semantics despots1 about this, so I know this is not a universally held opinion, but is the correct one2.
Ironically, I do struggle to use they/them pronouns for people who, to me, look exactly like your average man/woman and not at all any different from what you'd expect in terms of appearance and behavior. But that's a different argument. The argument that annoys me is the one about grammar. It's dumb.
Staying on the topic of trans and nonbinary people and the language associated with them that I find annoying: the gender-critical community seems to have reached a consensus that they will now refer to trans people as “trans-identified [biological sex]” rather than the more commonly-used “trans [gender they transitioned/are transitioning to].”
Look: I get the point. You want to make it very, very clear that you don't think trans women are, or will ever be, real women. Okay. We get it, you've been saying it for years now. While I find your methods distasteful, I do think you make a few reasonable points, but you're making The Discourse really confusing and it's making it difficult for the public to talk about these issues in a meaningful way because no one knows what the fuck anyone is even saying anymore.
Like, wtf even is this:
Using accurate and agreed-upon language is important so that people don't look at you like you're an idiot who doesn't even properly understand what he thinks he hates, or with abject confusion because you just vomited nonsensical word soup into the wind. What Mr. Windham here appears to be trying to say is that men can never become women, but he also clearly thinks that “men who want to become women” are called “trans men” because he actually doesn't know any trans people, or anything at all about this mythical group of creatures he heard about once on facebook. Who he is actually talking about are trans women, of course. Trans men imitating women is called “drag” and I'm not really sure many trans men are out there intentionally imitating the gender they went through so much trouble to stop resembling.
The way the comment is phrased also makes it seem like Jimmy thinks trans people are actual pretend creatures, figments of the imaginations of the delusional left rather than actual people with disorders that are documented in the DSM — or even teenage girls suffering from mental illness that appears to manifest as gender dysphoria but isn't, actually. Ironically, technically speaking, that this kind of confusing wordplay James and people like him use doesn't even logically allow for the possibility of ROGD or the theory of social contagion, which are commonly discussed among gender critical feminists, culture and psychology writers, and critics on the right, among others.
Like I said, I'm not really annoyed that the GC folks are pissed about broader language hijacking, because I am, too, pretty often. I don't think it's unreasonable to question the language we are encouraged to use or what to replace it with and why… it's just that adding the word “trans” to the gender already does what you're trying to do when you choose to emphasize a trans person's biological sex. When you hear “trans woman,” the word “trans” immediately informs you that the person in question is biologically male but presenting as a woman. It is not a secret they are trying to keep from you or code words to confuse your understanding of sex and gender. It is not language meant to obscure understanding of reality; it is literally so trans(heh)parent. It's very neutrally correct language that tells you the person’s gender history.
One more little thing before we switch gears here: using “male” and “female” as part of these descriptors is incongruent with how anyone else would typically identify themselves in the same conversations, which would be as a man or a woman. It sounds weird to the ears to say something like, “those people on the bench are a man and a trans-identified male.” It sounds much less weird to say “the people on the bench are a man and a trans woman.” It sounds better to use consistent language across the board. This is part of why some women are grossed out hearing men refer to women as “females” in a particular kind of tone when they only refer to men as “men,” not “males.” There’s more to it, but also, on a basic level, it just doesn’t match.
Anyway, it's dumb to try to change the language we use to describe trans people because it already makes sense the way it is, and the way it's being changed is too sloppy, too confusing, and too likely to be technically inaccurate. Just say “trans [gender].” Ffs.
I'm also tired of hearing that America is too sexist to elect a woman as president. Look: we already did, 8 years ago. Hillary won the popular vote because the majority of American voters wanted her to be the president. She didn't get to be not because America was too sexist to elect her (we literally elected her!!3) but because the electoral college didn't.
Honestly I think Democrats should just be willing to take this as a win. I don't even care of it looks pathetic to the right or anyone else. The portion of the country that voted for her increasingly believes the electoral college shouldn't even exist; just pretend it doesn't and own the fact that the Democrats actually got over half of American voters to want a woman to lead them. They actually managed to do that, technically. Just take it. It’s fine.
You gotta give up that whole “cis is a slur” thing. It's so petulant. It's like saying “trans” or “straight” or “white” or “Jamaican” is a slur. Christ, enough already. You’re starting to sound like you have blue hair and a septum piercing4 and need a safe space.
I'll concede, though, that while it's not a slur and doesn't even fit the literal dictionary definition of one, it is used a lot more often than it needs to be for a word that describes over 99% of the human population. It's really okay to just say “women” or “men” most of the time. Surely we can all agree that using a zillion identifiers at all times can get out of hand and is kind of silly and clunky! Just kind of!
Like I said, hijacking of useful terms, broadening definitions to the point of meaninglessness, and needlessly and confusingly redefining terms annoys the shit out of me.
Stay tuned for the next one, where I mostly aim at the left.
If you liked my annoying5 rant about things that annoy me, I sure would appreciate it if you clicked that little heart down there so that more people can see it!
A friend just made up that term and I stole it because it describes me as a person extremely well
Source: me
Well, you guys did. I protest-voted for Johnson.
I have a septum piercing, so I am allowed to make fun of them. The reason I can make fun of blue hair is because blue hair is objectively ugly on everyone all the time.
The final count, per ctrl+f, was only 10. I thought I’d definitely said it more than that. I’ll try harder next time.
“Straight” got pushback when it first appeared, decades ago, but people gave up. The gist of the objection was that creating categories of human beings that were analogous to races, which have immutable characteristics, was inappropriate. There are men. They have male bodies. They do things with their male sex organs with themselves and other people. If they do things with another man, they’re engaging in homosexual activity. That doesn’t make them a different category of human being. They could put that same sex organ into a different type of body the next day. But this mindset obviously gave way to the idea that being “gay“ is a fixed and permanent feature that exists from before birth, and lasts throughout a lifetime. While there are countless contrary cases, it became the dogma that this was the basic reality, and all others were inauthentic, and that being “gay“ was like being “Black.” (we will leave aside the inconsistent dogma that race is a social construct that has no biological or material reality.) To be gay was something you are rather than something you do. This understanding permitted a repurposing of the entire black civil rights struggle as a historical predecessor for gay rights, which was, of course, politically effective in the American context. So if there’s something that you are, which is gay, then it means that people who are not gay, must also be a different category or type of human being, hence the need for “straight.” Adopting that terminology meant accepting an entire framework, which was at least initially resisted. (As an aside, It’s interesting to see now the idea of fluidity, and a continuum or a spectrum, which is inconsistent with and antithetical to the idea of a fixed and immutable gayness.) In short, to concede the word “cis” is to concede the entire political struggle. I don’t think it will be as easy to get the overwhelming majority of the population to characterize themselves as “cis” the way most of them will characterize themselves as straight. Trans is a tougher sell than gay.
I wholeheartedly agree about the bastardization and mutilation of language. Both by people who want to change and progress the way we speak, and by the people resisting those people. Annoys me. Words mean things.