Pedomorphisis and the Abortive Language of Transgenderism
February 21, 2011
One of the interesting things about any faith-based subculture is the specific cultic language invented to express the identity and shared experiences of adherents. In the case of transgenderism that language is marked by infantilization and use of linguistic rules not reflected in the wider English speaking culture. (I use English here because it is my native language, but would love to hear if transgenderist language is more functional in other languages). These tendencies adopted by transgenderists manifest in various ways.
One example is the terms assigned by adherents to the process of medical and surgical body modification used to disguise oneself as a member of the opposite sex. This process is labeled euphemistically as “transitioning”: the process of changing oneself into something different. Undoing the process: “de-transitioning” or “re-transitioning”. No other series of human body modifications, (even the most radical of medical or surgical procedures) claims to change the person into “something different”, or into a different person. The subtext of this linguistic choice is: A) Superficial appearance and hormonal balance comprise a distinct state of being, and B) that state of being, when adopted by a user, renders them “other”, a change into a literal different entity. But what is truly being changed into something different through this process? A male becomes a male taking estrogen who has disguised his secondary sex characteristics into a visual approximation of female. The language assigned by transgenderists to the medical/surgical/social adoption of superficial sexed appearance is part of the cultic language that supports the fantasies of the transgenderist subculture, and has no correlation to any other medical/surgical procedure, simply because no other regimen purports to change the nature of a subject.
Another linguistic anomaly of transgenderism is the dogged insistence that there be no noun used to describe one who is transgendered. Oh and that reminds me: Transgender is a word that ignores basic rules of the English language. As such it is inherently dysfunctional. There is no such thing as a “transgender person” in the English language, as there is no such thing as a “left-hand person” or a “divorce person”. There are those who can be described as a “left-handed person” or a “divorced person” however. The insistence of transgenderists that the English language adopt words which ignore all rules of the English language is yet another revealing choice by which transgenderists attempt to operate in a fantasy realm outside of language itself, and demand we all join them non-consensually in abandoning common shared language and supporting their adopted reality. But back to the noun problem.
There can be Italians. Gays. Paraplegics. Lawyers. Jews. Lesbians. But according to the adopted linguistics of transgenderists there can be no noun to refer to them, unlike any other descriptive category of human. There can be no “Transgenders” because: A) The word itself is outside the common rules of language, and B.) Transgenderists (presumably) find their own condition to be so inherently outside of human experience that they insist we tack on “human” or “person” to any discriptor, in order to make clear we are discussing a human trait. As in: “Transgender(ed) Person”. The subtext is that transgender is NOT a human trait, unless care is taken to insure that it is. “Italian person” “Lawyer person” etc can be linguistically correct, but no one tries to deny that these words also have noun forms. In some cultures it may be impolite to refer to an individual as the noun form of a descriptor “A Jew”, “A Black”, “A Gay” because these nouns are used to refer to a characteristic or concept, not an individual in their totality. But no one insists that the noun forms of those words don’t exist and can’t be properly used when referring to groups that share a characteristic. You can talk about “asthmatics”, you can talk about “a neighbor”. But you cannot talk about a “transgender” both because the term itself is linguistically flawed, and because transgenderists insist that no noun form should ever be used for the characteristic they share. Out of linguistic necessity the public adopted “Tranny” as the noun form, but transgender(ed) activists have decried its usage.
Other curiosities of the language of transgenderism include the infantilization and pedomorphism implied by the language they use to describe (and obfuscate) the body mods they adopt, and the language they use to describe their experiences of them. “Top surgery” and “Bottom surgery” are good examples. One would presume transgenderists have divided the human body into upper and lower halves, regions of terrain for body modification as it were, but that is not what they mean. They use “top” and “bottom” to refer specifically to breasts and genitals, much as a child might refer to their genitals as “privates” or “down dere”. Top surgery does not refer to “above the waist” or to facial feminization surgery, tracheal shave, laryngoplasty, etc. It refers to breasts. Mastectomy. Breast implants. It refers to breast surgery, in the most infantile way imaginable. “Bottom surgery” must refer to any transgenderist body mod on the lower half of the body, right? Hip implants, liposuction, gluteal implants? Nope. It’s a euphemism for genital surgery. Hysterectomy. Vaginectomy. Bilateral oophorectomy. Metoidioplasty. Phalloplasty. Scrotoplasty. Penectomy. Orchiectomy. ColoVaginoplasty. Etc. Transgenderists use the term “Lower Dysphoria” to define their dissatisfaction with their natural genitals, not discomfort with their thighs or feet. Another infantile genital euphemism specific to transgenderism.
Transgenderists describe ingesting opposite sex hormones as “Transgender(ed) Puberty”. Middle-aged males describe themselves as “a twelve year old girl”, depending on how long they have been taking female hormones, and middle-aged Female “transitioners” describe themselves as teenage boys. Sometimes a direct timeline from the date of starting hormones is used, with a transgenderist stating “I’m a two year old”, referring to themselves as infants from the time of their “rebirth” into the “other” status of their inhabited gender fantasy.
Why have transgenderists adopted language that is inherently “broken”? Why the insistence that the concept of transgenderism should never be referred to in noun form? Why the infantile jargon referring to breasts and genitals? Why the pedo-pubescent self-descriptors? Why the language enshrining surgical “otherness” and surgical transsubstantiation?
It’s all a variation of the fantasy-supporting language of faith-based subcultural identities. Variations particular to the fantasy being constructed and maintained by those using the language. From Robert Lifton’s Eight Conditions of Thought Reform:
Loading the Language
The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed.
The cult invents a new vocabulary, giving well-known words special new meanings, making them into trite clichés. The clichés become “ultimate terms”, either “god terms”, representative of ultimate good, or “devil terms”, representative of ultimate evil. Totalist language, then, is repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon, prematurely abstract, highly categorical, relentlessly judging, and to anyone but its most devoted advocate, deadly dull: the language of non-thought.
Controlling words helps to control people’s thoughts.
The group uses black-or-white thinking and thought-terminating clichés.
The special words constrict rather than expand human understanding.
Non-members cannot simply comprehend what cult members are talking about.
The public is not naïve enough to believe that medical science is able to actually change one’s sex. Those ideas are left back in the fifties when the concept was first introduced, and when governments first began issuing fictional legal sex markers on advice of the clueless medical establishment. And everyone knows the concept is false. No science has ever supported the claim that gender roles are anything but culturally created. The very language of transgenderism fails in its efforts to be adopted by the wider culture. It has failure built into it. A house of linguistic cards built on top of a mirage. It reveals more about the fantasy life of transgenderists than it facilitates communication of the concepts it claims to define.