Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Federalist writer explains why people should be rude

The Federalist
Daniel Moody, who claims to be an independent philosopher in England (in contrast to one who is dependent), has written two polemics for The Federalist: “Transgenderism Is A Fake Legal Construct” and, today, “Why You Shouldn’t Use Transgender Pronouns.” Perhaps Mr. Moody is dependent after all and I will deal with today's offering. Moody is irrelevant but the meme is one that we see with increasing frequency.

We begin with this bit of willful ignorance:
Firstly, our concern lies not with an illness (transsexualism) but with an ideology (gender identity, leading to transgenderism).
Our concern? Is this a religious matter? It seems so because assigning the idea of an ideology to gender dysphoria is something that has emanated from the Catholic Church. The reason that this is nonsense is that an ideology is voluntary while gender dysphoria is involuntary which is the very reason that Pope Francis is so intent on employing this rhetorical design. His god is binary and makes only men and women, all of whom are cisgender and heterosexual. Any variance must be a choice.

Moody then explains “how transgender pronouns undermine language.” Of course there is no such thing as “transgender pronouns” but critical thinking should not deter Mr. Moody from his chosen path:
You don’t need to be a psychology professor to realize than an attempt to transplant pronouns from the body to the mind is an attempt to destroy our ability to communicate. Consider: John can choose from infinite gender identities, with no fixed link between any one gender identity and any one set of pronouns.
Right. it is all part of some conspiracy intent on destruction. Consider that John doesn't choose a gender identity. That's not my opinion. Rather, that is the finding, through peer reviewed research, of the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and a number of other professional organizations. If, by some chance, Moody is reading this he is probably saying to himself: “What do those godless scientists know?” Apparently a great deal more than Moody.
For example, John and Joan might each identify as “female,” with John using she/her/hers and Joan using, say, red/white/blue. What does all this mean? It means gender pronouns are hyper-volatile. John might change his pronouns (without changing his gender identity), or he might change his gender identity (without changing his pronouns), or he might change both. Furthermore, he might do any of these things at any time and for any and no reason. That’s a lot of badges.
No. That's a lot of bullshit. I can continue with the drivelectomy but doing so is both tedious and pointless. Truth in this matter can be found in civility. In polite society we address people and refer to them as they choose. That is just how things work. It is part of the propriety contract that we have with each other. If Mr. Moody chooses to refer to Caitlyn Jenner as “Mr.” Jenner and then employs male pronouns when referring to her it tells us more about Moody than Jenner. We know that Moody is impolite — an obnoxious boor — and probably a religious crackpot.

Moody's chosen conduct is at his own peril.

Related Content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.