An epidemic of epidemics
Badenoch has never compared “children coming out as trans” to a disease. She has, however, referred to the surge in referrals to NHS gender identity services as “almost an epidemic”. And while it might be an emotive word, there has been a 1,607% increase across the past decade in referrals to NHS Gender Identity Services (Gids) at the NHS Tavistock and Portman Foundation Trust. Although the Tavistock clinic has now been shut following a report which slammed the service as “not safe” for children, there are still 8,000 youngsters on the NHS waiting list for help with gender confusion. This unprecedented rise in need for Gids can rightly be understood as an “epidemic”.
In the figurative sense rather than the literal one, but the figurative sense has been around for a hella long time.
More widely, “epidemic” is one of those words that gets lazily tossed around by politicians. Osborne has herself referred to a drink “spiking epidemic”, a “child poverty epidemic” and an “epidemic of violence against women and girls”. Yet outside of the murky depths of social media, no one would seriously accuse Osborne of suggesting that the victims of drink spiking, children living in poverty or female survivors of male violence are diseased.
Because in general we know perfectly well that words can have both literal and metaphorical meanings. It’s also true that we know metaphorical meanings can be dog whistles. It’s complicated.
It’s not a disease.
It just requires life-long medical treatment to save people’s lives…
Badenoch is being castigated for “likening children and young people coming out as trans to the spread of a disease.” While that could be interpreted as “trans kids are diseased” it’s more likely that the complaint is over comparing a positive view of the surge — more and more kids boldly letting the world know who they really are — to a negative view of the surge — an epidemic. There are so many it strongly suggests a social factor or factors involved in identifying as trans, which isn’t healthy. The disease/contagion is thinking you’re trans, not the thinker.
Since that’s what’s at issue it seems to me that the accusation is both justified and irrelevant.
Reminds me of an old Soviet era joke:
“Will there be a Third World War?”
“No, but there will be such a struggle for peace that there will be no stone left intact on the earth.”
@Ophelia:
Do people really “dog whistle” much, in the actual meaning of the phrase? That is, do they use coded language that hides their intent, but their supporters would discern the intent?
The “dog whistle” idea seems to come from the Manichean division of everyone in to good people and bad people. Bad people know that they are bad, and know that they have to hide their intent, so use coded “dog whistles”.
But the truth is more that everyone thinks that they are acting for the best, and so will tell you what they think. Hardly anyone actually “dog whistles”.
Thus, in reality, the accusation of dog whistling is just another of the vast number of tactics for disallowing speech from people who disagree. “What you said is not that bad, thus I’ll accuse you of meaning something worse, in order to demonise you and shut you up”.
Osborne’s twisting of “epidemic” to “disease” is a classic case of the latter; a bad-faith interpretation designed to disallow the dissent.
Who says “the actual meaning of ‘dog whistle’ is ‘using coded language that hides their intent, but their supporters would discern the intent'”? That’s not what I mean by it, and I’m not aware that that’s what other people mean by it. People don’t generally say things with “their supporters” in mind – people don’t think of themselves as having “supporters” in the first place. What a bizarre way of looking at it.
@Ophelia:
Isn’t that the generally accepted meaning of the phrase (or, rather, the original meaning, anyhow)?
E.g. from wiki:
“In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans. Dog whistles use language that appears normal to the majority but communicates specific things to intended audiences. They are generally used to convey messages on issues likely to provoke controversy without attracting negative attention.”
‘Trans ideology is a disease’ is a qualitative statement, while ‘trans ideology is an epidemic’ is a quantitative one. If this isn’t clear, then false analogies can ensue…
“…no one would seriously accuse Osborne of suggesting that the victims of drink spiking, children living in poverty or female survivors of male violence are diseased.”
There’s a difference between “their supporters” and “intended audiences.” Something like “their friends” would be a better fit, I think. To me dog whistles=deniability, but that may be just me.