clear
Saturday, 27 February 2021
The Logic of Political Correctness: Avoiding a Word Means Avoiding the Truth
Share
clear

by Theodore Dalrymple

The mills of political correctness grind exceeding fine, though unlike those of God or justice, they also grind rather fast. Nothing is too small or insignificant for them, nothing can hide from them for long.

Recently I noticed an article in the online version of the Journal of the American Medical Association titled “Pregnant People’s Paradox—Excluded from Vaccine Trials Despite Having a Higher Risk of Covid-19 Complications.”

Pregnant people? What kind of people? Women, surely? But it seems than the word women, at least in certain contexts, has become some kind of insult, as strenuously to be avoided as another well-known insulting epithet.

Here, for example, is a paragraph from the article: “January 7: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its COVID-19 vaccination guidelines for pregnant people. ‘Based on how [messenger] RNA [Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna] vaccines work, experts believe they are unlikely to pose a specific risk for people who are pregnant,’ the update’s authors wrote. However, the actual risks to pregnant individuals and their fetuses are unknown because the vaccines haven’t been studied in this population. The bottom line, the CDC said, is that vaccination ‘is a personal choice for people who are pregnant.’”

Note how delicately the word women is avoided here. It is as if it were a pure coincidence, mere chance, that women and not men were the ones who were pregnant, and that it might well have been otherwise.

It is not difficult to see the implicit lie that underlies and motivates the semantic evasion in the article, a lie which it appears that an important government agency (the CDC) now accepts and is willing to collude with, spread and no doubt soon to require adherence to as a condition of funding.

The lie is that there is no biological difference between men and women, a lie that has been adopted in the most cowardly possible fashion because of the activity of a very small but ruthless pressure group. In Britain, people (not only pregnant people) may change their sex on their birth certificates, a revision of history at which even Stalin might have balked.

Increasingly in learned journals and other publications for the intelligentsia, the locution “women and men” is used instead of “men and woman,” despite the fact that the latter trips off the tongue much more easily and is more grateful on the ear, just as “ladies and gentlemen” (soon to be an outlawed locution, no doubt) trips off the tongue and is much more grateful on the ear than “gentlemen and ladies.”

There are, perhaps, few ladies and few gentlemen left—note that I put the sentence this way round in the interests of euphony rather than of ideology—but that is another matter.

To abandon the locution ladies and gentlemen because there are no ladies and no gentlemen any more, in the sense that we have all become unmannerly brutes, is different from abandoning it because there might be a transexual in the building, or rather (since transsexuals want to be ladies or gentlemen), a person of the many indeterminate genders that have recently been discovered or acknowledged to exist.

One might regard the ludicrous circumvention of the word women by JAMA and the CDC as of trivial import, but I think that this would be a mistake.

Indeed, it is the very smallmindedness, or if you like thoroughness, of it that gives it its significance, for it suggests a policing of language that is so totalitarian in sensibility.

And perhaps what is most alarming about it is that there is no central dictatorship, such as that of Nazi Germany, that is commanding a change of language and terminology.

Under a totalitarian regime it is at least understandable that people adopt the new language, because they are afraid not to do so and will be denounced if they do not. We, by contrast, are surrendering in anticipation of totalitarian victory.

The very absurdity of the expression “people who are pregnant” is an advantage from the point of view of those who would like to impose a totalitarian regime on the rest of us (forgetting, as they do that totalitarian regimes quickly devour their young). If we are forced in one way or another to use absurd locutions, we forgo our probity, despise ourselves, and then lose all will to resist.

Suppose I want to publish an article in a prestigious journal that insists upon a language code with which I do not agree, but which will not publish what I write unless I accede to it. I am then faced with the choice: abandon my article, or abandon my principles.

You can go elsewhere, you say: and for the moment you are quite right. But increasingly, though informally, every publication—at least, every prestigious publication, whose contents are noted—adopts the same or similar language code (which, of course, changes rapidly, as did official history under Stalin, to ensure that we remain in a state of anxious vigilance, for todays “correct” locution may tomorrow be evidence of bad character, if not of thoughtcrime).

Perhaps there will remain a few publications in which one will be able to publish, just so that the mainstream can claim to be tolerant: but they will play the same role as the non-communist political ‘parties’ in the people’s republics of Eastern Europe immediately after the communist takeover.

We are all—or many of us—careerists in the sense that we want to get on. This is not necessarily discreditable: an entomologist wants to make a contribution to entomology. If in the process of getting on, we have to sacrifice a few little principles, agree to things we don’t agree with, just in order to get on with our real life’s work—well, it is regrettable, but so be it. Anyway, people have always had to sacrifice their principles to an extent, so the change is of degree rather than of type.

And thus, before long, we shall all call pregnant women people who are pregnant, and adopt whatever other absurd and sinister locution the pressure group du jour dreams up, until no one can tell the truth any more because the very concept of truth will be despised.

First published in the Epoch Times.

clear
Posted on 02/27/2021 4:31 AM by Theodore Dalrymple
Comments
27 Feb 2021
Send an emailShaun Johnston
Good points. On the other hand, I sympathize with those who, possessed of breasts and monthly periods and so continually reminded of their potential for bringing new humans into the world, may dread doing so or for any reason choose not to do so. Seems to me, they are entitled to banish all that from their personal and public identities. But if we all agree to avoid referring to gender we're saying, it's entirely unimportant if children go on getting born, we're just not concerned in the least. Such challenges to demography become political challenges. So is it entirely up to those people how they regard their potential for motherhood? Suppose we were to say to them, you must embrace that potential. What would we offer them in return? How about the wearing of the burke?

27 Feb 2021
Bill Corden
I posted the comment below on Phyllis Chesler's recent thoughts about "cancelling Shakespeare" but I think it applies to this article in an even stronger way. The question is....... where does it stop? I see censorship creeping in throughout the media and it's expanded to censorship by omission of salient content. For instance you won't be able to find any reference in Toronto's newspapers that the majority of murders in that once very peaceful city are of blacks by blacks ... somehow it's racist to point out the truth. Anyways, this PC thing is like a fungus growing at the base of a tree, there's no central brain to control it and it just keeps on sending out tendrils for sustenance. Here's the next language fort to come under attack "How long before these keepers of the public's conscience turn their attention to the fact that Latin based languages assign genders to their nouns .. un edificio, el camino, la mer, le soleil, la lune, par example. Aren't those languages blatantly sexist? Their narrow fields of vision (plus the fact that most of them are just plain stupid) hasn't allowed them to identify this glaring anomaly in PC linguistics. I see a whole new industry in de-gendering (if that's a word) the Romance languages. Let's see if the French, Spanish and Italians take the destruction of their languages lying down like the English speaking world does. Maybe start in a place like Quebec where they don't care too much about language usage? Après moi, le déluge?"

27 Feb 2021
Ms Grundy
A matter of semantics. If a dangling participle spits an infinitive the result could be a pregnant pause.

27 Feb 2021
Send an emailHoward Nelson
The recent mean meme ‘women’ has been reified and dignified by its transmutation into the inacronym ‘WOMen’. This now signifies any entity ‘With Out Men.’ Thus, even a Wonder Woman will wonder, “Hey, where have all the guys gone?” ///. Related question: What ought a deliverer of paid envelopes be called? A fee-mail man? A fee-mail female? If now, after trans identification, fee-mail post-man. or, fee-mail pre-female —- depending on previous self-identification and dental records?


Order on Amazon or Amazon UK today!


Order at Amazon or Amazon UK.today!
Audible read by Ann Osmond

Subscribe

Categories

Adam Selene (2) A.J. Caschetta (7) Ahnaf Kalam (2) Alexander Murinson (1) Andrew Harrod (4) Anne-Christine Hoff (1) Bat Ye'or (6) Bill Corden (4) Bradley Betters (1) Brex I Teer (9) Brian of London (32) Bruce Bawer (4) Carol Sebastian (1) Christina McIntosh (866) Christopher DeGroot (2) Conrad Black (696) Daniel Mallock (5) David Ashton (1) David J. Baldovin (3) David P. Gontar (7) David Solway (78) David Wemyss (1) Dexter Van Zile (74) Dr. Michael Welner (3) E. B Samuel (1) Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (1) Emmet Scott (1) Eric Rozenman (10) Esmerelda Weatherwax (9954) Fergus Downie (23) Fred Leder (1) Friedrich Hansen (7) G. Murphy Donovan (76) G. Tod Slone (1) Gary Fouse (173) Geert Wilders (13) Geoffrey Botkin (1) Geoffrey Clarfield (335) George Rojas (1) Hannah Rubenstein (3) Hesham Shehab and Anne-Christine Hoff (1) Hossein Khorram (2) Howard Rotberg (24) Hugh Fitzgerald (21359) Ibn Warraq (10) Ilana Freedman (2) James Como (25) James Robbins (1) James Stevens Curl (2) Janet Charlesworth (1) Janice Fiamengo (1) jeffrey burghauser (1) Jenna Wright (1) Jerry Gordon (2517) Jerry Gordon and Lt. Gen. Abakar M. Abdallah (3) Jesse Sandoval (1) John Constantine (122) John Hajjar (6) John M. Joyce (393) John Rossomando (1) Jonathan Ferguson (1) Jonathan Hausman (4) Jordan Cope (1) Joseph S. Spoerl (10) Kenneth Francis (2) Kenneth Hanson (1) Kenneth Lasson (1) Kenneth Timmerman (29) Lev Tsitrin (3) Lorna Salzman (9) Louis Rene Beres (37) Manda Zand Ervin (3) Marc Epstein (9) Mark Anthony Signorelli (11) Mark Durie (7) Mark Zaslav (1) Mary Jackson (5065) Matthew Hausman (48) Matthew Stewart (2) Michael Curtis (724) Michael Rechtenwald (48) Mordechai Nisan (2) Moshe Dann (1) NER (2590) New English Review Press (126) Nidra Poller (73) Nikos A. Salingaros (1) Nonie Darwish (10) Norman Berdichevsky (86) Paul Oakley (1) Paul Weston (5) Paula Boddington (1) Peter McGregor (1) Peter McLoughlin (1) Philip Blake (1) Phyllis Chesler (183) Rebecca Bynum (7234) Reg Green (7) Richard Butrick (24) Richard Kostelanetz (16) Richard L. Benkin (21) Richard L. Cravatts (7) Richard L. Rubenstein (44) Robert Harris (85) Sally Ross (36) Sam Bluefarb (1) Sam Westrop (1) Samuel Chamberlain (2) Sha’i ben-Tekoa (1) Springtime for Snowflakes (4) Stacey McKenna (1) Stephen Schecter (1) Steve Hecht (31) Ted Belman (8) The Law (90) Theodore Dalrymple (934) Thomas J. Scheff (6) Thomas Ország-Land (3) Tom Harb (4) Tyler Curtis (1) Walid Phares (32) Winfield Myers (1) z - all below inactive (7) z - Ares Demertzis (2) z - Andrew Bostom (74) z - Andy McCarthy (536) z - Artemis Gordon Glidden (881) z - DL Adams (21) z - John Derbyshire (1013) z - Marisol Seibold (26) z - Mark Butterworth (49) z- Robert Bove (1189) zz - Ali Sina (2)
clear
Site Archive