Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Most don’t have a grounding.

So I can only guess that being incomprehensible is the point – it’s supposed to be inaccessible to the plebs.

Keeping things in house, acting as interpreters, gatekeepers and guides gives merchants of obscurantinism control over the narrative. Would Judith Butler be as influential if she wrote simply and understandably? She takes adantage of the all-too-common belief that things that are complex are difficult to understand, and there “must be something to it” if it’s coming from a professor.

But there’s a difference between specialized vocabulary (which can involve a lot of technical jargon), and obfuscatory bullshit. The core of genderism is that “gender identity” is essential, trumps material reality, and carries the “authentic” self, and that sex is constructed, subordinate, and can be overcome, or changed. None of this is true, and this core untruth must be defended at all cost. We’ve here seen how honest, clear language is death to both gender ideology and trans activism. Media reports are straight out lies, calling men women, ascribing male crimes to women, characterizing statements of fact “transphobic” without quoting the actual statement made. And so on. This media deception is the public face of the academic games used to give whatever intellectual credibility genderism has in academia; both sides would be crippled by plain language.

It’s interesting that sports organizations seem to be waking up to the realities of the physical bodies their rules and regulations judge and qualify. The nuts and bolts of muscle bone and breath are stubbornly unmoved by appeals to “inclusion” that conceal cheating. (Would that medecine would become as heedful of the demands of human bodies entrusted to its care) It’s also interesting that reportage of sports’ awaking from woke is couched in terms of “bans” against trans athletes, and not as the recognition of the unfairness of letting males compete against women. Honest reporting would demolish the “arguments” for ‘inclusion” by showing that they were simply demands to be allowed to continue cheating. Their inevitably side falls in the light of clear language, whether it is on the sports field, the news room, the political convention, or academia.