Sue Lani Madsen: When we don’t have all the words

How did we devolve to a point where an intelligent, well-educated woman like Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson feels compelled to duck a simple question?

“Can you provide a definition for the word woman?” asked Sen. Marsha Blackburn at the judge’s confirmation hearing.

Jackson’s coy response was ironic, given that being a woman was one of President Biden’s criteria for his Supreme Court nominee.

And “No, I can’t … I’m not a biologist” became viral fuel on social media. One meme shows a game warden confronting a hunter, asking why he shot a buck when he only had a cow tag. The hunter shrugs. “I’m not a biologist.”

Humans are classified as “male and female based on anatomic and chromosomal characteristics,” according to Mosby’s Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing and Health Professions. Modern biology can delve deeply into the variations and abnormalities within each group, but it doesn’t render the basic categories any less relevant to health care, daily life and public policies. Females don’t need prostate exams and males don’t need Pap smears, regardless of alterations to more obvious anatomical characteristics.

I’m not a physicist, but I can usefully define gravity without researching Steven Hawking’s work on quantum gravitational mechanics. We have the words to distinguish between an out-of-the-ballpark home run and a rocket escaping earth’s orbit as they both disappear from view.

But what if we didn’t have the words? What if sportscasters were forced to call the game as if the relationship between bat, ball and gravity required a degree in physics before making an observation of the obvious?

What if journalists writing about the unfairness of a trans athlete competing in the women’s division of a collegiate sport couldn’t use the words “biological male” to describe the reason for problem? Mainstream editors following the Associated Press Stylebook require writers to refer to the problematic person as if always a “woman,” making it impossible to have a clear conversation. Any mention of the athlete’s name for the first two decades of life, using the appropriate gendered pronouns, is called “deadnaming” instead of history.

When Title IX was signed in 1972, feminists pushed for gender neutral language to change mindsets holding both boys and girls back from reaching their full potential. Changing “fireman” to firefighter” and dropping the modifier “male” in front of “nurse” were signs of progress.

Now we have ultra-progressive guides for gender-neutral language pushing boundaries. What is still a good resource on how to list titles and use – or not use – the Oxford comma also sets standards for contemporary word usage as language evolves.

The AP Stylebook reflects a world view which believes human beings can change sex by changing pronouns. “Its followers are allowed to use phrases like pregnant people.” There’s a word for that group of people. They’re called mothers.

Every human being on earth was born of a woman. Woman is a good word. Twitter twits sometimes use the terms “bleeders” or “front-holers,” terms I find incredibly offensive. J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books and a master of words, calls such language hostile and alienating. In a lengthy essay on why she chooses to speak out on gender issues, Rowling writes: ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning.”

Journalists don’t have to use the more ridiculous terms yet, but when they do it’s a signal of either bias or timidity in the trenches. Veterans of the first gender-neutrality culture war can’t help but notice the language evolution only erases women. No ugly synonyms for men championed by the progressive mob. Ballers? Front-danglers?

Rowling is not timid. She has been on the receiving end of death threats after tweeting “If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.”

One issue Rowling has repeatedly pointed out, as a survivor of sexual abuse, is the impact of ignoring biological differences between the sexes on the vulnerable. Some women are organizing in Washington to push back against ESHB 1956, dubbed by one irritated woman as the “Don’t Say Predator Bill.” Passed by a progressively driven Democrat controlled Legislature, the new law as specifically designed blocks attempts to protect women serving prison terms.

“You can’t ask how many males the women inmates are forced to share cells, showers and living spaces with,” tweeted Beth Daranciang, vice chairman of the King County Republican Party after Gov. Jay Inslee signed the bill this week.

Rowling continues to speak truth. It’s harder for those without her power to withstand the pressure, but it’s essential to halt the devolution of society into an Orwellian future of newspeak.

Contact Sue Lani Madsen at rulingpen@gmail.com.