10 May 2019
Correspondent BH reminds us that “referring to people by their legal gender rather than their biological gender [is to give] the state authority that it doesn’t have.” His position has merit and I am grateful for the reminder. We should always avoid endorsing legal fictions, and endeavor to call all things by their proper names (theft, murder, boy, girl, label, object.) Conditionally adapting to Massa’s language may be a tactical advantage, but preserving our own integrity is a strategic necessity.
Still, I wish people would not say “biological gender.”
Words have gender (and there are only three),
organisms have sex (and there are only two),
and people have proclivities (and they are endless.)
Of course, I have no quarrel whatsoever with the term “legal gender” as the predicate adjective “legal” when referring to biology, physics, or most any other part of the real world means “meaningless nonsense follows.”
BH defends his use of the term, pointing out that “gender has always had a direct correlation with sex… [E]ven though it was a term reserved for grammar, and later legal things, that correlation wasn’t broken until recently.” Well, he is right, of course, and I can grasp the present usage (see caveat above in re Massa‘s language). Language evolves, sometimes capriciously, but sometimes sensibly, to better describe changing circumstances or contemporaneous phenomena. But when the changes ARE capricious, or unnecessary, or even contrary to common understanding (see “sick” “bad” or “bitchin‘”), then it does offend me. Maybe because I am retarded and have always had a very difficult time keeping up with slang.
(“Feet, say good-bye to rug. Face, say hello to concrete floor.”)