The linguistic war against women

Over the past week, we’ve seen two biological males – or males, as we used to call them – take first and second place in a women’s cycling race. We saw that the Crown Prosecution Service hired a diversity consultant who is trans and who once suggested that the word woman could be replaced with “womxn”. We have heard of public servants having received equality training telling them that the phrase “adult human woman” – which is the dictionary definition of a woman – is a transphobic hiss. We have seen the publication of a new study from King’s College London which suggests that one way to circumvent sex/gender controversies could be to change the wording of questions in official documents like the census. For example, you could ask respondents “Are you menstruating?” rather than “Are you a woman?”.

Anyone who doubts that the word woman, and the whole idea of ​​femininity, is being erased, sacrificed on the altar of transgender ideology, will surely have had a rude awakening in recent days. When men are eligible for women’s sports awards, it is clear that women’s sport is in danger of becoming a thing of the past. When powerful institutions like the CPS and the civil service flirt with the idea that it is a sin to utter the words “adult human woman”, it is evident that even talking about women has become risky business. When even someone as globally influential as Michelle Obama uses the unpronounceable word “womxn,” as she did in a story shared on her Instagram page, you know it’s not just the crazies from the purple-haired, time-rich campus who tumbled down the rabbit hole of gender fluidity. No, from the sports world to the political world, from justice to state bureaucracy, the idea that one can change sex, and that language to have to to be changed to avoid offending the trans minority, is now Orthodox.

Surprisingly, Mrs. Obama’s use of the word “woman” was linked to the Roe vs. Wade controversial. She shared on Instagram a series of slides created by the non-profit campaign group When We All Vote. One said: “State legislators will have the power to deny women the right to make decisions about their bodies and health care.” There is a dark irony in this comment, and one that shows how messed up the war on femininity has become. This Obama-endorsed IG slide is concerned that women are denied the right to control their bodies and yet it implicitly denies women the right to use certain words when talking about themselves and what they need. “Womxn” is a word of rebuke, used to remind the female masses that their species now also includes males. As said to be “womxn” when it was added in 2019, it is designed to be “inclusive for trans and non-binary people”. That is to say, guys. By eliminating the old, supposedly problematic word “woman”, even as it wrings its hands over women – sorry, womxn – being stripped of their bodily autonomy, When We All Vote unwittingly highlights the deep confusions and deep illiberalism behind the current erasure of femininity.

Not a day goes by without new reports on the linguistic war against women being published. So recent public service history involves a group called A:gender, which supports trans and intersex people who work in government departments. The temperature got its hands on training videos produced by A:gender, which are shown to thousands of civil servants each year, one of which claims that it is impossible to define a woman and that saying “adult human woman” can be “transphobic”. Watch out, these woke educators are warning the public service of ‘transphobia’ [that] is increasingly presented as feminism”. Again, these are public servants we are talking about, the people responsible for the proper functioning of the nation. And they’re told if you say out loud what the dictionary says about a woman, then you’re a fanatic. They are told that people like JK Rowling, whose big crime of conscience is understanding biology, are promoting hate disguised as feminism.

Then there is the CPS. He hired Sophie Cook, a trans activist, to fill a key position in the area of ​​diversity and inclusion. It’s the same Sophie Cook who once used the pejorative term “TERF” to refer to women who believe that sex is immutable and that women’s rights should take precedence over the emotional needs of men who think they are women. . Cook also defended the inclusive word “womxn”, asking once in a Newsnight discussion of why some feminists are “so offended” by this. Perhaps because it expressly limits their ability to talk exclusively about women? (Real women.) King’s College London’s The Future of Legal Gender Project showed how dehumanizing linguistic aggression against women can be. One of his proposals is that the census might make itself less offensive to trans people if it asked “Are you menstruating?” rather than “Are you a woman?”. Bad news for women who have gone through menopause. They won’t count. Maybe their existence matters less than the feelings of men who think they’re women?

All this linguistic contortionism has serious consequences in the real world. So in sports, last week two men – “trans women” – took first and second place in the ThunderCrit women’s fixed-gear cycling race at Herne Hill Velodrome in London. In response to criticism from women who rightly wondered why there was only one woman on the podium in a supposed women’s race, ThunderCrit organizers said he won’t speak to anyone who isn’t interested. than “push”.[ing] their story. Why is it a ‘narrative’ when women say women’s sport should be for women only, but not a ‘narrative’ when ThunderCrit decides to embrace and promote the strange ideology that anyone can be a woman if she wants it?

An even more sinister consequence of the new linguistic misogyny has also emerged over the past week. The BBC, in an article about lesbians who feel pressured to have sex with ‘trans women’, has been revealed to have changed the gender of an alleged sex offender so as not to offend. An alleged rape victim spoke to the BBC for her article and used the words ‘he’ and ‘him’ to refer to her attacker. But the BBC has replaced each male pronoun with the neuter terms “they” and “them”. A BBC insider said The temperature“I can’t think of any other situation where we would change the words of an alleged rape victim.”

This is very serious business. While the public broadcaster itself is now more concerned with avoiding offense to alleged rapists than with telling the truth – in this case, that a woman said she was raped by a man – then it is clear that today’s linguistic hysteria is impacting our very ability to understand the world around us, to know the truth. The BBC’s shameful decision to shield an alleged rapist from an offense echoes developments in the justice system, where some British police forces have said they will register rapes as having been committed by women if the rapist s identifies as female. Soon, no doubt, the claimant in some rape trials will be pressured to say “she” and “she” about the man who allegedly forced his penis on her. This will be the terrifying but completely logical conclusion of the Orwellian drift in the discussion of all things related to women.

This all happened last week in the UK. Women have been left off the podium in a women’s sport. The civil service and the CPS being influenced by people who think there is a problem with the word woman. The BBC has revealed that it interfered, for ideological reasons, with the testimony of an alleged rape victim. These are all the disastrous consequences of the sacralization of trans ideology and the cancellation of everything and anything that offends trans sensibility. Language is arrogantly rewritten by elites, common words are reshaped into expressions of fanaticism, women are denied the right to describe themselves as they see fit, and truth itself becomes a distant dream as the linguistic accuracy is replaced by newspeak and correct thinking. It’s not Queer Studies millennials running all of this – it’s the BBC, it’s the state, it’s the courts and it’s the cultural establishment. A counter-revolt against this linguistic terror is an absolute necessity.

Comments are closed.