JK Rowling Backlash

[AlucardNoir]

The only reason you and I can communicate is because we used a set of words whose meaning we both agree upon, or better said whose meaning we were taught by others be it directly in school or indirectly via language acquisition as we grew up. If we start redefining words to the point where they lose all meaning then communication breaks down.

You can claim all you want about how the meaning of words changes depending on context but that doesn't really fly when the only context is black text on a white web page. We're not creaming at each other in a pub, we're not face to face, we're not watching videos of each other and producing video responses. You either write what you mean using words whose meaning both parties know or you don't get to communicate your thoughts to other people. When you using a different set of definitions then the rest of the world you don't get to claim you're being misunderstood.

Maybe you would have preferred I used "blank slates"?

[clearspira]

Anyone who does not believe that words have meaning have not read Orwell. Spoiler: dictating what words can or cannot be is one of the first classic steps towards a dictatorship.

It takes almost no effort either to completely destroy human speech by controlling only a couple of words. Thought experiment: describe to me what the US flag looks like if i ban you from using the words "star" and "stripe". If you can find a way that makes sense in less than a paragraph then I will be seriously impressed.

[CmdrKing]

I mean I could, it’s just be less efficient.

“The flag is built from a foundation of 13 parallel horizons, alternating in red and white, symbolic of the blood spilt to ensure an independent New World. In the upper corner is a field of blue, upon which pentagrams representing each state within the union light up the sky.”

That said, words do mean things. However, the meaning of words is not objective but collaborative, and this can drift, change, and reverse over time or in new contexts.

The funny thing is that isn’t really the issue when talking about gender, because what trans folk are doing is asserting that their gender does match the one they claim in most respects. Just with some mismatched aspects. And in the main transition is a means of reducing or eliminating that discrepancy.

This is also why viewing gender as a spectrum or claiming non-binary genders is a thing, it’s a way of creating language to describe being at ease with some of the presumed elements of one gender but discomforted by others, or at ease with a mix and match of assumed gender norms.

[Xaphan]

Alucard: We can communicate, to the extent we can, because we are currently each playing language games with rules overlapping enough for the transfer of meaning. Both of us can (and probably do) play other language games too. We have chosen this one based (in part) on the context of what forum we are on, in what thread, what culture we live in, what past experiences we have had, what other things have been said by the people talking (here and elsewhere)... There is a huge amount of context to work with here. And to claim that the meaning assigned to a word in this language game is 'the' meaning of a word is the same kind of mistake as claiming that a move which is legal in Chess must also be legal in Dungeons and Dragons.

If there is a way to destroy communication, it is by spending all your time insisting everyone play the 'correct' language game, rather than trying to understand what is being said, and choosing to isolate disagreements of word choice, even when it is clear that no real difference in principle is at issue. Which is what you have been doing all thread. And which, once understood, makes fairly clear that you are not actually saying anything of interest about how one should treat trans people. You're just insisting that everyone else is playing chess, so it must be the correct game to play, and the people in this thread have to too.

Spira: Anyone who believes words have set meanings has not read Wittgenstein. And is probably unfamiliar with the modern work around theories of meaning and linguistic science in general. Which is fair - it's a niche topic.

But Wittgenstein was one of the greatest linguistic philosophers who ever lived, whereas I'm pretty sure you're talking about 1984. Which was fiction.

Yes, Orwell is in fact quite famous for a totalitarian government which insisted on a single 'correct' set of words and terms, and attempted to force usage of that artificial language. This is under basically the theory that language shapes thought, and that controlling the use of language can be used to control how people think. Which was a reasonable theory at the time.

Fortunately, we now have several decades of actual scientific testing of that idea, in the form of NLP. Which you may note doesn't work. Newspeak is linguistic science fiction, and has all the real applications that implies. Not that insisting everyone talk a certain way seems to have that much in common with saying that as long as the people involved understand, literally anything is fine.

[TGLS]

Anyone who does not believe that words have meaning have not read Orwell. Spoiler: dictating what words can or cannot be is one of the first classic steps towards a dictatorship.

It takes almost no effort either to completely destroy human speech by controlling only a couple of words. Thought experiment: describe to me what the US flag looks like if i ban you from using the words "star" and "stripe". If you can find a way that makes sense in less than a paragraph then I will be seriously impressed.

Well, ignoring the fact that the US flag needs a paragraph to describe it to specification:

"The flag of the United States of America broadly has two regions: a blue rectangular region in the top left, and the outer region. The blue rectangular region is filled with fifty white regular pentagrams in a slightly staggered fashion (as in there are no stars directly below other stars). The outer region is split into thirteen horizontal rectangles that alternate between red and white."

See? The US flag is complicated, and that isn't even entirely accurate, and leaves out details like the symbology and the how to display it properly. Here's a shorter one:

"The US Flag has a square area that is filled with Pentagrams, outside of that area has horizontal rectangles that alternate red and white."

--

With regard to Orwell, the oppression of the language itself only works in the context provided. VOA Special English has had success explaining news stories for over 50 years now, and only has a standard vocabulary of 1500 words. Simple English Wikipedia is able to explain relatively complex topics.

“The flag is built from a foundation of 13 parallel horizons, alternating in red and white, symbolic of the blood spilt to ensure an independent New World. In the upper corner is a field of blue, upon which pentagrams representing each state within the union light up the sky.”

When I looked it up on Wikipedia (to get an accurate look at the flag), I noticed that it mentioned the color symbolism was post-hoc and assigned by Charles Thomson. Here's a time article about this:
https://swampland.time.com/2013/07/04/why-the-u-s-flag-is-red-white-and-blue/

[AlucardNoir]

Anyone who doesn't think words have meaning can't read Wittgenstein to begin with.

All this thread we've been discussing what 'gender' is and if it has anything to do with biological and genetic sex. King and you seem to think 'gender' means whatever the fuck you want it to mean, and because you disagree with how it's used and has been used for the past few centuries by the rest of the population, then the rest of the population needs to update their dictionaries because you disagree with our definition.

This isn't a set of words changing their meanings over time, this you, King and the rest of the LGBT community engaging in that linguistic SF Orwell called newspeak. Man means woman, and woman means man and genetics and biology have nothing to do with 'gender' - yeah, NO.

These kind of word games were funny when Douglass Adams did them in regards to his Babel fish, but reality is not a joke.

I said it before and I'll say it again, J.K. was right and the people responsible for firing that woman are denying biological reality.

[Riedquat]

Obviously words have meaning in some sense otherwise we may as well all be hitting keyboards at random. However context and other cues are absolutely crucial. For example in the context of a scientific paper the word "energy" has a very distinct, well-defined meaning, which it doesn't in ordinary language. In ordinary language it's often fine to use energy and power as synonyms, which it certainly isn't in a scientific paper (and consequently people who insist you're wrong if you use them as synonyms in ordinary conversation are themselves mistaken).

A darker consequence of being very specific about meaning and ignoring context is to deliberately use a word that's acquired negative connotations, even if they weren't present in its original meaning. And what's just plain annoying are people who deliberately start arguing about irrelevant semantics when they quite clearly understand the point being made but choose to try to dismiss it based on said irrelevant semantics rather than the message the writer was trying to put across.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

But if you cannot admit that having a LEGAL way to walk into a woman's bathroom is not an enabler that makes it 100% easier for them to get away with it then we do not have much more to say.

Of course it makes it easier. I'm just not convinced that an unlocked door is an adequate barrier against this hypothetical pervert rapist, when considered against the inconvenience it puts on people who are trans/intersex/whatever and just want to use a changing room or bathroom without being harassed (or worse) themselves.

Right. And then at a certain point, these types of concerns don't really stack up to the case of someone's identity. To the point where transgender is more cemented in public social infrastructure then it becomes highly discriminatory by consideration of official standards.

[AlucardNoir]

Obviously words have meaning in some sense otherwise we may as well all be hitting keyboards at random. However context and other cues are absolutely crucial. For example in the context of a scientific paper the word "energy" has a very distinct, well-defined meaning, which it doesn't in ordinary language. In ordinary language it's often fine to use energy and power as synonyms, which it certainly isn't in a scientific paper (and consequently people who insist you're wrong if you use them as synonyms in ordinary conversation are themselves mistaken).

A darker consequence of being very specific about meaning and ignoring context is to deliberately use a word that's acquired negative connotations, even if they weren't present in its original meaning. And what's just plain annoying are people who deliberately start arguing about irrelevant semantics when they quite clearly understand the point being made but choose to try to dismiss it based on said irrelevant semantics rather than the message the writer was trying to put across.

In regards to the first paragraph: maybe you should explicitly aim that at Xaphan.

In regards to the second: when part of the message is about the forced redefinition of established terms you no longer get to hide behind accusations of semantic "pedantry".

[clearspira]

So the answer to my thought experiment is that just by banning two words you now have to use a whole paragraph in its place. In effect, what was simple is now overcomplicated.

Although I am indeed impressed. I could not work out how to describe it myself.