I've been close to this nonsense for longer than you, so I have been aware of the difference between gender and sex for decades. My current best explanation is that just as race is built on a superficial understanding of ancestry, gender is built on a superficial understanding of sex. That both are social fictions can be seen in how they…
I've been close to this nonsense for longer than you, so I have been aware of the difference between gender and sex for decades. My current best explanation is that just as race is built on a superficial understanding of ancestry, gender is built on a superficial understanding of sex. That both are social fictions can be seen in how they vary so much from time to time and society to society—obviously, women's gender roles are very different now than they were a century ago in the US or than they are today in many conservative religious societies.
I wish I could just announce that I'm using sex pronouns instead of gender pronouns and ignore the whole issue, but I can't. Besides, using different gender pronouns is ancient--drag queens went by she and butch lesbians went by he long ago. I agree with you that it's very odd to try to legalize a social convention, but then, the law has always been subect to fads.
1. The impact of increasing cognitive load by muddying language. Thinking and speaking (or writing) are not really separate tasks. Increasing the cognitive load by introducing neologisms makes it harder to think unless one dispenses with them immediately.
2. The younger generation will inherit a muddied lexicon, thereby making clear and articulate thinking on this issue next to impossible. I've experienced this myself many times as a student--things I had already thought but hadn't been able to articulate suddenly became easy to express once my vocabulary expanded. Reducing or destroying the lexicon doesn't prevent us from having thoughts, but it does prevent them from being articulate.
In other words, the extent of the power of language *itself* isn't the main (or even most pressing) issue. It's the other elements that hitch along for the ride.
I would also differentiate between the deliberate obscurantism at play here with the euphemism escalator* (re: "colored" vs. "Negro") argument as they are fundamentally different things.
*Euphemism *treadmill* is the term, I believe. My bad--I'm up past my bedtime, ha.
I've been close to this nonsense for longer than you, so I have been aware of the difference between gender and sex for decades. My current best explanation is that just as race is built on a superficial understanding of ancestry, gender is built on a superficial understanding of sex. That both are social fictions can be seen in how they vary so much from time to time and society to society—obviously, women's gender roles are very different now than they were a century ago in the US or than they are today in many conservative religious societies.
I wish I could just announce that I'm using sex pronouns instead of gender pronouns and ignore the whole issue, but I can't. Besides, using different gender pronouns is ancient--drag queens went by she and butch lesbians went by he long ago. I agree with you that it's very odd to try to legalize a social convention, but then, the law has always been subect to fads.
Very interesting conversational thread, thanks.
Two missing elements, by my estimation:
1. The impact of increasing cognitive load by muddying language. Thinking and speaking (or writing) are not really separate tasks. Increasing the cognitive load by introducing neologisms makes it harder to think unless one dispenses with them immediately.
2. The younger generation will inherit a muddied lexicon, thereby making clear and articulate thinking on this issue next to impossible. I've experienced this myself many times as a student--things I had already thought but hadn't been able to articulate suddenly became easy to express once my vocabulary expanded. Reducing or destroying the lexicon doesn't prevent us from having thoughts, but it does prevent them from being articulate.
In other words, the extent of the power of language *itself* isn't the main (or even most pressing) issue. It's the other elements that hitch along for the ride.
I would also differentiate between the deliberate obscurantism at play here with the euphemism escalator* (re: "colored" vs. "Negro") argument as they are fundamentally different things.
*Euphemism *treadmill* is the term, I believe. My bad--I'm up past my bedtime, ha.