Just What I Choose It To Mean

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Source: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12608-when-i-use-a-word-humpty-dumpty-said-in-rather

Gender is a Feeling

School children in Austin, Texas were told on a survey that sex is what is a person is born as but gender is “how a person feels.”…

The idea that people can self-select their gender without regard to biological sex and identify as something other that what they were born reveals one of the clearest examples of such statist intentions underlying this entire project, she [Stella Morabito] went on to say. And that is because such self-constructed identities necessitate that the rest of society adhere to a new set of demands related to speech, forcing everyone to use language and pronouns where sex is either entirely erased or jumbled in confusion. As language is overhauled and destabilized, so goes rational thought, she said.

Read more: https://www.christianpost.com/news/gender-is-how-a-person-feels-texas-school-system-tells-students-in-survey.html

Here is a look at current gender ideology:

The United Nations defines “gender identity” as

a person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned to them at birth. (page 112)

Talk about defining a term using the same term!

In the same document, the U.N. defines “gender” as

Refers to the social attributes and opportunities associated with being male and female and the relationships between women and men and girls and boys, as well as the relations between women and those between men. These attributes, opportunities and relationships are socially constructed and are learned through socialization processes. (page 112)

So “gender” is the “attributes, opportunities and relationships” that a society has constructed for people but the terms “women,” “men,” “girls,” “boys,” “male,” and “female” are not defined. They appear to possibly include a connection to a biological reality that the ideology being pushed denies. Indeed, the same document defines “sex” as

Biological and physiological characteristics (genetic, endocrine, and anatomical) used to categorize people as members of either the male or female population (see also the definition of intersex). (page113)

Putting this all together, the U.N. seems to be saying that there are two biological categories of humans, that societies have different norms and expectations for humans depending on which biological category they fall into (ie. “gender,” although “gender” is supposed to be something entirely independent of biology), and that human beings have different feelings about the norms and expectations given to them based on their biology (“gender identity”). And all this is being used to declare that subjective feelings trump biology and society and determine the reality that everyone must live by.

On the Spectrum Argument for “Gender Identity”

It is argued today that biological men and women do not exist because “gender exists on a spectrum.” A blog comment left on a post on a different topic makes a good point related to this argument:

25. NO GOOGLES, April 29, 2019 at 3:42 p.m.:

What a silly objection. “No true Scotsman” is a pretty trivial thing to deal with. For example, color is on a spectrum – does that mean that “green” doesn’t exist? Or do you know what green is when you see it even if a very technical exacting definition is something hard to agree on?

A gender and sex professor of mine once used a similar argument. He argued that one could put baldness and hairiness on a spectrum. In the middle of the spectrum there might be hard cases if one has to classify someone as either “bald” or “hairy.” Yet no one seriously argues that baldness and hairiness do not exist.  Similarly, it may be hard to classify someone as a “man” or a “woman” (at least by external observation), but that does not mean that the categories of “man” and “woman” or “male” and “female” or “masculine” and “feminine” do not exist. Reality is binary, even though there may be hard cases and even if postmodernists want to “destroy the binary” and all classification, distinction, and even thought with it.

What are your thoughts on this argument?

Logic is Gone

Jon Rappaport:

A hundred fifty years ago, at least some Americans recognized that all serious discourse depended on the use of the faculty called Reason.

Formal debate, science, and law all flowed from that source…

Read more: http://alt-market.com/articles/3568-the-state-weaponizes-education-to-create-ignorance

Language and the Truth of Things

“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish.”

Confucius, The Analects

Source: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1337998-if-names-be-not-correct-language-is-not-in-accordance

Student Editor Fired For Tweeting That Women Don’t Have Penises

This is what happens when words become nonsense words with no referents. What exactly is a “woman” now anyway?:

A student editor at a top university has been fired in a transphobia row after he tweeted that ‘women don’t have penises’.

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6192453/Student-editor-tweeted-women-dont-penises-fired-university.html

On the Fires of its Own Destruction

Tom Gilson commenting on C.S. Lewis‘s Abolition of Man vis-à-vis the logical contradictions inherent in the modern identity movement (Note: this is about postmodern theory and logic and not anyone’s personal feelings. Quote has been edited for broader application while keeping the original sense):

We can forgive Lewis for not seeing today’s [identity movement]… No one else saw it coming either, not even as recently as five or six years ago. But Lewis did foresee quite accurately how far Man would go in his quest to conquer Nature: All the way, until he collided with reality.

The sad thing? Even when modern man collides with reality, he won’t admit it. He just doubles-down on the idea that he can make reality bend to his wishes. But he can’t; especially not according to the philosophy [that one can be whatever one chooses to be]. That same philosophy, you see, also insists that his choices are determined by Nature. Everything is determined by natural law, period. The mind, as Lewis noted, is ruled by the weather or by digestion. Even the … “born this way” defense is an admission that the mind has no power over Nature after all.

So in the world of … activism the mind controls all, yet in that same world the mind controls nothing. Physical nature determines nothing, yet physical nature determines everything. Or as Lewis put it, “Man’s conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be nature’s conquest of Man” — meaning, all that is distinctly human.

The [person who wishes to abolish an aspect of his essence or personhood] … carries forward the abolition of Man. And all humanity — or so it seems, at least — is stumbling over itself racing to throw itself on the fires of its own destruction.

Source: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2018/03/26/the-trans-war-on-truth-and-reality/