Currently Reading

Words as Weapons: Why We Must Stand Our Ground Over Pronouns by Jonathon Van Maren

5 minute read

Read Previous

Germany: Asylum Applications Up 56%; Highest Point Since 2017 by Robert Semonsen

Russia and China Issue Joint Statement Calling for a Halt to NATO Expansion by David Boos

Read Next

Commentary

Words as Weapons: Why We Must Stand Our Ground Over Pronouns

A close-up of the cover of Abigail Shrier's excellent 2020 book, "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters," Washington, D.C.:Regnery, 2020.

In the autumn of 2016, trans activists targeted Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, at the time a relatively obscure psychologist based at the University of Toronto. Peterson had released a video explaining why he opposed proposed Canadian legislation, Bill C-16, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act regulating speech regarding gender identity. Due to his decades-long study of totalitarianism, Peterson stated in no uncertain terms that in the fight for civilization, language was always one of the first battlefields—and was thus the hill to die on. We all know how that fight went. Instead of getting cancelled, Peterson got rich and famous.

After the fact, many wondered: why was Peterson so willing to sacrifice his career over the issue of transgender pronouns? He is now one of the world’s most well-known intellectuals, but at the time there was every likelihood that his story would end the way most of these incidents do—with a quiet firing, a 24-hour news story, and another victory for the dudes in drag. I heard a student ask Peterson this question at one of his early lectures in 2017, before he launched his global tours marked by the presence of security and prohibitive speaking fees.

His response was simple: why not? Usually, he pointed out, there are few compelling reasons to die for any particular patch of soil. But in order to fight, one has to draw a line. For Peterson, that line was language. He would not say what the trans activists and their government enforcers told him he must say, because he refused to cede the right to choose his words to the state.

It is cliché to mention George Orwell these days—everyone does it. But when it comes to explaining how totalitarians of all stripes manipulate language for ideological ends, it is difficult to beat 1984. “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?” Syme, of the Ministry of Truth, tells Winston Smith. “In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.” 

When the range of available terminology is narrowed, so are the boundaries of the debate. When you accept the confines placed on language—or, in the case of ‘preferred pronouns’, use the compelled speech demanded of you—you accept ground chosen by your ideological opponents and agree to put aside the most potent weapons you have for making your case: words. 

There are many on the Right who believe the entire pronoun debate to be a waste of time. With so many cultural battles that must be fought, this is understandable. Sensing this, many trans activists and their allies are eager to present their demands as a mere matter of courtesy. Just stop being such a jackass, they say. How does it hurt you to call someone what they want to be called? We’re not asking you to believe it, in your heart of hearts. We’re just asking you to play along in public. Although they don’t say it out loud, those of us listening closely can hear their silent conclusion: for now

When I attempt to discern whether a political figure or commentator is willing to fight the tides of the times, I find that the issue of pronouns is a good bellwether. If they are willing to use masculine pronouns for a woman claiming to be a man, or female pronouns for a man claiming to be a woman, then they’ve told us everything we need to know about themselves. To cede pronouns is to cede premises, for if you are willing to play along for the sake of courtesy, where does it stop? How can you demand that the fellow you just called a ‘she’ be kept out of the women’s changerooms or from exposing herself’ to girls and women at the spa?

Language is the first domino in the war over reality—and pronouns have nothing to do with politeness and everything to do with ideological submission. I have found it encouraging to see so many liberals join the war against wokeness as of late—Bari Weiss, Andrew Sullivan, Caitlin Flanagan, and others involved with the newly-launched University of Austin, for example—but I wonder where they would fall on this issue. Many liberals are more concerned with decorum than common sense, and I have a sneaking suspicion that many of these folks would call America’s first ‘female’ admiral—a strapping man who previously went by the name Richard Levine— “ma’am,” if push came to shove.

What do we actually cede if we play along with ‘preferred pronouns’? We are conceding that the person demanding that he be called a ‘she’ actually is a woman. Once that is established, what grounds do we have for keeping him out of the female bathroom, or off the girl’s swim team, or out of a rape crisis center for women traumatized by men? The simple answer is that there are none. He has demanded that we call him a woman, and we have agreed to do so to be courteous. That courtesy will then be used as a bludgeon. 

Once the first domino falls, the rest will follow in short order. We do not know what the last domino is, but we’re already at the stage where once-prestigious publications use phrases like “her penis,” so the floor may be fathoms below.

As Peterson understood, there are few statements more ludicrous than “they’re just words!” Words are everything. Words shape how we understand and perceive reality. Trans activists trying to transform our society understand that, and we should too. “Pronoun courtesy” is nothing more than a public surrender to a poisonous ideology—and that is precisely how it looks to those demanding our verbal submission. Appeasement, as Sir Winston Churchill once wisely noted, is the art of feeding a hungry crocodile, hoping it will eat you last.

The saga of Jordan Peterson, however, should give us optimism. When trans activists first attacked him for his refusal to cede language to them and their state enforcers, it looked likely that his career would be cancelled. Instead, his stance inspired millions, his ideas became global bestsellers, and his measured, meticulous manner of speaking and articulating ideas became so ubiquitous that it has inspired scores of parodies. Peterson proved that being brave and standing your ground does not have to be feared. His superstar status, rather, is evidence that we have all been craving courage for a very long time.

Jonathon Van Maren has written for First Things, National Review, The American Conservative, and is a contributing editor to The European Conservative. His latest book is Prairie Lion: The Life & Times of Ted Byfield.

Tags:

Leave a Reply