Language is the basis of communication, for without language, there is no communication. However, whenever language is coopted or perverted, miscommunication and chaos are inevitable. These are not mere pitfalls on the evolution of language; they are the destination. When people can’t agree on what something means or find common understanding of terms, communication becomes difficult, if not impossible. This is even more so when simple words are deemed undefinable. If you say “cat” and I picture a squirrel, dog, or pylon, we’re not referring to the same thing. If I keep pressing that we are referring to the same thing, dialogue becomes problematic.

We’re living in an age of subjective science based on feelings, rather than objective observances. If I were to say gravity doesn’t exist because I don’t feel it, one need merely point out objects falling to show gravity does exist as something specific. But if I claim falling is when things go up, one can either accept my truth that falling is when things go up or counter this by dropping an object and possibly be labeled a “graviphobe” for disagreeing. Congratulations, gravity now has two opposite meanings. Add more definitions or non-definitions to “gravity” and multiply that by a big enough magnitude, conversations about gravity require excess steps of clarification that might not even clarify.

People can identify by identifying.

At some point in the recent past, people decided certain basic biological words don’t really mean what anyone thinks they mean or have no meaning at all. Now others just have to accept non-definable terms as reality without question or risk being labeled a “phobe” or worse for objecting to being forced to accept this distortion of language as truth. (Incidentally, “phobe/phobia” used to mean fear of something specific; now people use it when someone else disagrees, while elevating that disagreement to fear.)

These days people can identify as the opposite sex merely by identifying as it. People need not describe what it actually means to FEEL like a man or woman or why they feel that way, but simply to stand on it as such and force others to accept it as reality. What does being a man feel like? What does being a woman feel like? What does feeling feel like? These are not questions explored, but declarations shouted from the Twitter tops that “hey, I’m a woman now because I said so!” Asking what the word “woman” means is often met with “someone who identifies as a woman.” I am a circle; therefore, I am a circle. One can either accept this as truth or counter with the biological understanding of woman and be labeled a “transphobe” for disagreeing with this assessment. Congratulations, “woman” is now an empty, meaningless shell of a term.

One of the effects of emptying these terms of definable qualities or features is that if “man” and “woman” are amorphous terms, then claiming to change from one to the other doesn’t mean anything. Conversely, if the terms have set distinctives, changing is impossible. Either way, it’s a self-defeating premise. The irony is that this supposed change affirms that men and women are different; it just doesn’t know how.

Unrelated but related

Supposedly, gender is unrelated to sex; some people will tell you gender changes, but sex does not. However, those who claim this view either fail to realize or fail to acknowledge the immutable gives way to the mutable. In order to accommodate gender change, biological physiology gets modified, terminology gets unnecessarily wordy, and/or clarity gets murky. Instead of using biology as the de facto understanding of what a man or woman is and helping people come to terms, word usage is manipulated to enhance the confusion. Biological woman is relegated to such terms as “vagina owner*,” “person who can get pregnant and bleed” (excessive wordiness good for a 2,000-word paper), or “gestational parent.” While these words are technically-correct descriptors of women, they sound more clinical than personal and come across as condescending. However, the implication in their usage by people who do so without a hint of irony is that men can fall under the umbrella of womanhood just by looking like a woman, while overlooking the fact that man cannot do these things anyway. Also, for things that aren’t related, descriptors of sexual function are still used to make distinctions.

For something that’s unrelated to sex, transgenderism is also couched in the numerous acronymic letters, the first three (at least) dealing with sexuality, not genderality. We’re told there’s a spectrum of genders, but if there aren’t only two genders, the first 3 letters are rendered meaningless or broadened into nonsense. Transgenderism undermines and rejects homosexuality as a concept; otherwise, it requires an inconsistent logic to maintain itself. Additionally, it implies people are really attracted to shallow abstract ideas represented by people, rather than people themselves. If someone is attracted to a specific sex and not simply someone else claiming to be a specific gender, that person becomes the bad guy in a lot of people’s minds. One doesn’t have to look very far online to see people get offended because others aren’t interested in entertaining this distortion of terminology or biology.

Switch-and-bait

If sex and gender use the same word but one has to distort the other into confusion to validate itself, this reveals the reality. In essence, this view that men and women don’t have set distinctives, one can become the other simply by declaring it so, and anyone who disagrees is reduced to a negative label is psychology gaslighting biology, telling it to take a back seat.

Men and women are different biologically, but transgenderism sees people as nothing more than interchangeable parts and empty terminology. Being biologically different doesn’t mean men and women shouldn’t be viewed as equals. Women have fought hard just to be recognized and taken seriously irrespective of their biological designs. If a woman can be easily replaced with a biological man who claims to be a woman, it’s hailed as a breakthrough in the name of progress by many; however, it demonstrates men and women are not truly viewed as equals. Why have someone who could get pregnant and might be away from a job for months when you can get someone without the capacity to become pregnant because they look superficially the same. Why pick for a sport someone who’s not as physically strong/fast as someone whose biological structure gives a physical advantage, if he just claims to be a she. Conversely, if a woman is only respected because people thinks she’s a man, she’s not actually respected. Just look up female authors who used male pseudonyms to have their work recognized.

This substituting one sex for another and calling it legit is nothing more than linguistic bait-and-switch. In any other line of thinking, bait-and-switch is frowned upon; if someone tries to sell you one thing that is really another, they are (or should be) called out on it. This is not the case with transgenderism. People are expected to bend over backwards trying to accommodate something that isn’t definable and even warps language into incoherency and apparent contradictions.

This is where we find ourselves today. Confusion and chaos. And people are just supposed to accept it without question. Those who oppose this line of thinking or point out its flaws are labeled as “phobes” in order to shut down opposition.

*Body part ownership makes them sound detachable and/or transferrable like pieces of property. I don’t own my body parts; they’re part of my whole.

Addendum: transgenderism breaks gender stereotypes by reinforcing gender stereotypes. Rather than saying boys can play with dolls, people have decided dolls are for girls. If a boy plays with a doll, people claim he’s a girl, which reinforces only girls play with dolls.