As much as one would like to declare the end of political correctness, in reality it has entrenched itself in our culture like a malignant tumor. Like a wayward encounter with an activist that finds you smeared with patchouli on your clothing, you can say you washed it out yet it tends to linger past the spin-cycle. But, there are indicators the verbal muzzling movement is losing much of its once potent ability to cause surrender of healthy discourse.
Recently, we were treated to widespread reports of the latest activist intent to strike a word from the public lexicon. The “Ban Bossy” campaign was one of those well-organized, well energized community efforts – and paradoxically not well thought out. The concept, sponsored in part with the Girl Scouts of America, was young girls become cowed, and stifled, once they speak up and become labeled as “bossy”. Distinguished from the effort to thwart bullying this was an attempt to squelch speech so some may not feel challenged. First Lady Michelle Obama, Beyonce, and others spoke up to make others pipe down.
Now my being a male means I have absolutely no place weighing in on such a matter… if you listen to those dictating discourse in this country. As it happens, I don’t listen to them. Therefore, I would aver if a word like “bossy” will wither their spirit I doubt they are leadership material. Honestly, who can marshal groups when they are focused on correcting every spoken affront and modifying vocabulary to non-confrontational syntax and gender neutral descriptivism so as not to disenfranchise the peanut brittle self-esteem of the meek of heart?
The Ban Bossy campaign was rightly met with derision and mostly laughed off the intertubes. The fact that this pushback occurred was not surprising but what is refreshingly evident is that this had so little traction. It is a sign of the waning import which political correctness once held sway. I continue to be surprised that media still rise to this “call to disarms”. These PC proclamations are about diminishing expression, the currency of broadcast journalism. Why these outlets enthusiastically promote their own censoring standards has long confounded me, but for contemporary media this is in the nature. Thankfully the gentry are starting to douse water on these groups wielding the lexiconic torches.
It is becoming clear the new frontline in the PC War is being waged by the alternative-lifestyle community. Forgive my struggle to aptly describe this demographic – they have made it impossible to be both accurate and inoffensive. The homosexual/other-sexual groups have had significant growth in their umbrella coverage of terminology. “Gay” was bifurcated to distinguish lesbians, but then assorted sexual categories were collocated as well; bi-sexual, transsexual, polyamorous, ect. Any type of coupling, or decoupling, was coming up with a new brand.
What is notable is the tried PC practice of using the language not for clarity but conflict. It has become common that these off-shoots of sexual identity have staked out their plot but they appear to draw their border not with a quaint white picket railing but an electrified fence. It is not enough to be recognized under their chosen banner. Any perceived error spoken is cause for loud rebukes, charges of psycho-sexual abuse, and possible actionable charges. Treading these lines lightly is quite often an impossible task. The numerous veiled categories are seemingly designed to create an offense unknown to the speaker.
As I was theorizing on this I experienced the very practice firsthand numerous times – once while writing this piece. I have been raged at by a transgendered person when I referred to them with the incorrect gender, (“he” over “she”, for instance). Then, at a later date, I was raged at anew by the same individual, after using the term as instructed. Now I was told to employ “they”.
And so, pronouns become a tool of hatred.
Also, while enduring sermons on the evils of labeling, I was repeatedly saddled with the moniker of “heteronormative”. I suppose I should have been outraged.
By design the gender-sexual designation is something that trumps anything else in a discussion. WikiLeaks became a global news story when a soldier funneled classified documents to Julian Assange. Today you cannot discuss this issue. Following incarceration, PFC Bradley Manning announced that “they” had become transgendered, preferring to be referred to as Chelsea. Major news outlets beclowned themselves, setting aside the story of compromised governmental secrets in order to fulminate on the proper way to refer to Manning. (Brad/Chelsea/him/her/it?) I saw one report struggle with calling him “Brad” during the document periods and “Chelsea” for current developments. The crimes were secondary to determining the proper social category into which to place the criminal, all because misidentifying Manning would become a greater crime.
This hyper-vigilance was again on display recently on the now deposed Piers Morgan program. His guest was transgendered author, Janet Mock, who had a new book to promote. In an interview that I’ll settle on calling “fawning” (because if I say Piers “kissed Mock’s ass” it will make me “transphobic”), Morgan soon found himself in trouble. In an effort at clarity on Mock’s story, Piers simply asked how long she had male genitalia before becoming “herself”. This blew up into a “controversy”, the legitimacy of which I’ll simply frame by reminding you, she is trying to sell a book. The fact that someone mentions male genitals in regards to an author whose book centered on female genitals is an unacceptable offense, it turns out. Morgan received days of angry retorts about his wildly insensitive and deeply offensive interview, an interview where he did all but shake pom-poms in Mock’s favor.
The hilarity here is the PR copy for Mock’s books calls her, “A desperately needed voice for an often voiceless community.” Be forewarned; if you dare misidentify a member of this community you will absorb days of very loud outrage from these voiceless people.
I not only suggest this hysterical default will bring an end to this newest PC tripwire, we can already see it on the horizon. Recently FaceBook entered this arena by making the announcement they will make it possible for users to identify themselves as they see fit – with over fifty different gender descriptions. That is correct, – over FIFTY. This is not only a minefield of propriety; it is the use of verbal IEDs. Even if you get the categorical identifier correct you can still become offensive with the incorrect pronoun applied. Honestly, if you are somebody intent on being recognized as “gender-fluid” I’ll support you, but the onus of clarity falls on your side.
Consider where we have now arrived. For generations we have been lectured that orientation is something within the individual and is not a choice, however a biological reality is something you can select. That is to say: your sexual preference is something you are born with, but the gender you are born with is something you can actually choose…? Now take it to the next level – if you are a male who prefers another male you were born gay, but if the other male declares himself to truly be a woman does that make you heterosexual as a result? Which birth status takes priority?
This militant gender-normative linguistic hagiography will not lead to tolerance, understanding, and acceptance; it leads to frustration, disenfranchisement and apathy. When a conversation cannot commence without an extended lecture on the proper verbal cues to be adhered to, you have effectively shut down discourse.
Nobody wants to watch a 90 minute movie that begins with a 70 minute backstory scroll, and nobody wants to wait for your quips about last night’s Walking Dead episode after suffering a quarter of an hour of proper gender designation. Frankly, not speaking to these people is easier… and safer.