Canned language=canned thought
Three of the biggest UK publishers’ Pride networks have responded to the launch of an anonymous gender critical network, releasing a joint statement saying “publishing should be a safe and inclusive space for all, including our trans and non-binary authors and colleagues”.
Also including our spinach-eating authors and colleagues and our sedentary authors and colleagues and our poker-playing authors and colleagues and our beer-drinking authors and colleagues…one could go on this way into infinity.
Who is saying publishing should not be a safe and inclusive space for anyone?
No one, of course. Not one damn person. You can search until your pith helmet is a mere rag but you won’t find anyone saying that.
And while we’re on the subject, why are adults constantly driveling about “safe and inclusive spaces” anyway? Isn’t it a tad babyish for people over, say, five?
Ah well. The point of course, as always, is to join the bien pensants in stomping on a new organization that dares to be “inclusive” of female people.
SEEN in Publishing, launched online last week, with a press release stating that it was aimed at publishing professionals, authors and creatives who “believe in the material reality of sex”.
That comma after “SEEN in publishing” is a mistake. Ignore it and the sentence makes grammatical sense. Keep it and you’re left wondering what the verb was supposed to be. Funny that book boffins can’t even proofread their own press releases.
Pride networks from Pan Macmillan, Penguin Random House UK and Hachette UK released a joint statement to express their solidarity for trans and non-binary publishing professionals.
The group stated: “We are disappointed to see the announcement of the SEEN in Publishing group earlier this week. We are concerned that the anonymous nature of this group could negatively impact the work environment and undermine individual safety, affecting some of the most marginalised in our communities.”
Why “negatively impact”? Why not “harm” or “damage” or “injure”?
In fact there’s probably a common thread here. The kind of people who rush to adopt the idiotic vocabulary of “safe and inclusive space” and “the most marginalised in our communities” are also the kind of people who rush to adopt dopy periphrastic gargle like “negatively impacted” in place of “harmed.” I don’t say that in jest. The weird damp over-anxious concern that words like “harmed” are somehow dangerous is a close relative of the weird damp over-anxious concern about the feelings of men in lipstick.
It added: “We feel strongly that publishing should be a safe and inclusive space for all, including our trans and non-binary authors and colleagues. We stand in support of any LGBTQ+ colleagues that have been negatively impacted by this news and are here to assist those impacted by the announcement.”
Jesus. See what I mean? Their brains are mush.
In a statement, the SEEN in Publishing network said: “We founded this network because we believe our industry should be a safe and inclusive space for everyone, including for those with gender critical views. Our dearest wish is to foster a culture within publishing where everyone’s views are listened to without fear or favour.”
Yes but what about all the negative impactification???? And “the most marginalised in our communities”???? Where is your compassion and sympathy and concern and caring and worry and fret and sorrow?
Best wishes to SEEN in Publishing.
Shouldn’t it be “of any LGBTQ+ colleagues who. . .”?
If “sex” and “gender” are completely different things (which we are told whenever it is expedient for that instant’s claim), how can the material reality of sex do any harm to gender identity claims? Because of all those other instances where they conflate the two, muddy the distinction, or attempt replace “sex” with “gender.” Clarity is their enemy. That clear definitions and acknowledgement that sex is real interferes with the pretentions of gender ideology is not the fault of those definitions. If genderism was consistent, coherent and valid, did not deliberately distort, misuse and redefine the terms they use, they wouldn’t have to stifle debate and claim “injury” and “violence” against their ideas.
This is standard administrator speak in academia. “Change makers” “Difference makers” “mindful of differences” “negatively impact” – they’re all part of the same bloated language adopted by people who see themselves as important, and want to make sure everyone knows it.
I can sort of sympathize with academic administrators – sort of. They are people with doctorates in education, a degree few Ph.D.s take seriously, and they’re surrounded by Ph.D.s who have larger vocabularies, more research history, and more credibility. They imagine they are talking like scientists and philosophers.
I suspect part of the ridiculous way that so many trans activists speak has a lot to do with coming out of the academic fields that are copying that ridiculous verbiage.
Once, just once, I’d like to see one of these smarmy statements acknowledge that even they, with all their commitment to “safety and inclusion” achieve that very safety and inclusion by using exclusion, and deciding who deserves safety. They’re not “safe and inclusive” of Nazis, nor are they “inclusive” of Civil War re-enactments in their offices (with real cannon fire, for accuracy). Exclusion is how you make the place safer for all those who Nazis target, and those who cannot work under cannon fire and bayonet charges. And it’s now got to the point that, rather than do commonsense exclusion to aid the free exchange of ideas and benefit society, you’ve decided to throw your lot in with people who believe in Tinkerbell Syndrome (that trans women will literally die if someone doesn’t believe they’re all women). Just be honest about it. Hopefully some good sense changes will flow from that.
As with so much of the retooled language, this turns the original concept on its head. “Inclusion” in this sense means including people (i.e. men) who would normally been excluded from the category “women” and barring any women who object to the destruction of the original grounds for the category. In sports, this would normally be termed “cheating,” but the regulating bodies pushing inclusion onto women have rewritten the rules to make the cheating official. That these same bodies get upset about doping is a mystery.
Also, how can a mere announcement hurt anybody? Unless it’s wrapped around a brick and delivered through a window, I can’t imagine anyone actually being that fragile. Does someone with the need for that degree of protection from upsetting ideas hire someone to pre-read everything for them, like some kind of literary food-taster, dedicated to prevent the mental assault or poisoning of their employer?
They have those, @YNNB, they’re called “sensitivity readers”, and that’s how some shouty blokes protect delicate Dicky in his dress from the big mean women writing about their own lives.