Should you use the language?

Is he right?

Before I get to that question – note Fred Wallace thinking anyone wants to get a good look at his thigh, let alone beyond it.

So. Should we use the language?

New question: how can we use the language when we don’t believe in the ideology that mandates the language? It’s like saying we should refer to people as rabbits if they say they are rabbits. It’s like saying we should refer to The Holy Father when we’re not Catholics.

That’s all the more true with this particular ideology because the language basically is the ideology. “Identifying as” is the ideology. The belief that “identifying as” is more real than being is the ideology. The belief that declaration creates reality is the ideology.

We can’t refer to men as “she” without endorsing the ideology. The two aren’t independent of each other. If we call men “she” we are surrendering and submitting to the ideology, when we think the ideology is poison as well as riddled with stupidity.

He’s drawing on the convention that, other things being equal, we call people what they say they are called. That’s the default, that’s normal. But it’s cheating to use the default to justify absurdities. I can’t go around saying my name is Nelson Mandela and you have to call me that. I can do that in a literal sense but it will get me nothing but contempt.

In ordinary circumstances, sure, we call people what they say they are called. In the other kind of circumstances, it depends. Here ends today’s lesson in etiquette.

3 Responses to “Should you use the language?”