The armed forces are to be given new guidance on “inclusive language” after the Defence Secretary said he is “unhappy” with the current advice.
Inclusive of what? Inclusive how? Speaking of guidance on language, how about not using the word “inclusive” in this vague but threatening way?
The MoD said its Inclusive Language Guide 2021 was a “practical toolkit” to help servicemen and women understand why “certain words or use of language is hurtful or non-inclusive”.
But words and language don’t have to be “inclusive” of everything at all times – if they did they couldn’t do their jobs as words and language. If words are to mean anything they have to be non-inclusive, because if they include everything they might as well include nothing. Meaning is inherently exclusionary.
The 30-page pamphlet said the words “woman” and “female” “mean different things but are often used interchangeably”, adding: “Referring to women as females is perceived by many as reducing a woman to her reproductive parts and abilities.”
Yes, that can be true. “Females” can sound downright insulting…but on the other hand they don’t exactly mean different things. They have different overtones, but the literal meaning is the same.
But then they tip their hand.
“Not all women are biologically female, and the conflation of ‘female’ to ‘woman’ erases gender nonconforming people and members of the trans community.”
All women are biologically female; that’s what the word means. Pretending that not all women are female erases women, so don’t do that. “Gender nonconforming people and members of the trans community” don’t matter more than women do, and there are way fewer of them, so don’t go redefining what “female” means to tickle the egos of a tiny narcissistic minority. Or to put it another way, cut your ties to Stonewall.
The Telegraph understands there are no plans to disband or redirect the MoD’s Diversity and Inclusion Directorate, which was responsible for the guide.
The news came as the new CDS, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, said the push for greater diversity in the military is not about being “woke”, but addressing the “woeful” lack of women and ethnic minorities in the forces.
If you want more women in the forces, don’t be telling women that not all women are female.
Comments
11 responses to “The words “woman” and “female””
I take it there was no similar recommendation regarding “man” and “male”.
The Telegraph certainly didn’t mention one.
Well then, meaning is evil colonialist plaggansdip! We must glorke against meaning and other associated trinklefin!
But in all seriousness, how does the conflation of “woman” and “female” erase gender-nonconforming people? Women that wear ties aren’t females, just women? Or females* that wear ties are women, just females? I’m confused.
*Sorry, I know that using that as a noun can be insulting, but it’s kinda necessary here to make my point.
And as for “trans” people, i.e., people that call themselves trans, I think that way back in, I don’t know, 2017, one could say that transwomen were women but male — but today I think that that’s considered hate speech.
How does not being included in the meaning of a word erase people? All ‘gender nonconforming people and members of the trans community’ (pronoun people) are excluded from loads of words, as are all of us. The word granite refers to a specific type of rock and zero people, are we erased? No one seems to complain about it, because delineation of meaning is normal.
Maybe try rooting out sexism (especially sexual assault against female armed forces personnel) and racism then? That would be a much clearer signal to new recruits, and of benefit to the people you already have.
Also, it just seems so weird that an institution whose main function is to train its membership to KILL PEOPLE is caught up in in namby-pamby gender bullshit. A bullet or bomb doesn’t give a shit what pronouns you use. (Yes, I know that there’s more to the military, but still.)
GW wrote:
Back when I was learning about what being transgender meant by asking trans people and their supporters questions, there was supposed to be a very important and critical distinction between being transgender and being gender nonconforming. Someone assigned female at birth who wore short hair and masculine clothing was only transgender if they identified as a man. If they knew they were a man.Otherwise, they were a woman who didn’t conform to social stereotypes and expectations — also a good thing, since stereotypes are bad.
It therefore all comes down to gender identity. Never, ever, ever conflate being transgender with being gender nonconforming, as if a trans man is really just a tomboy or “butch.” Doing so was ignorant and insulting. This was what I was told by those who knew. Two different groups.
So my reaction to “gender nonconforming people and members of the trans community” being just one group of people is a serious WTF.
I’ve got a few guesses:
1.) the general tendency to validate and support transgender doctrine by linking it to Other Things The Conservative Christian Religious Right Doesn’t Like has extended out from “Gays& Lesbians” to “People Who Look Like They Might Be Gay or Lesbian.” This is due partly to strategy, partly to sloppy concepts and sympathetic drift, and partly to sloppy epistemology and hating the Conservative Christian Religious Right.
If so, the Trans Umbrella will eventually include atheists, pagans, and Muslims.
2.) the term “gender nonconforming” has changed its meaning. Instead of having to do with defying gender stereotypes, it now signifies someone’s gender not conforming to their sex — a synonym then for “transgender.”
The social stereotypes being defied are the silly, restrictive views that if you’re a man, you have to be male, and that if you are a transman, you can’t be male (see above re “sloppy concepts.”)
Sackbut @ 1 – You are, of course, absolutely right. Someone has made the whole document available on Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/530589852/20210928-Inclusive-Language-Guidance-v1-O
The section headed ‘Sex and Gender Identity’ begins on p. 19. The subsection ‘ ‘Woman’ or ‘female’?’ is on p. 21. There is no equivalent section headed ‘Man’ or ‘male’? Only biological males can be men, apparently. But anyone can be a woman, just so long as their ‘gender expression’ is ‘feminine’. Your gender expression is ‘How you demonstrate your gender through the way you act, dress, behave and interact’ (p. 19).
If you don’t perform femininity you aren’t a woman. Not a proper one, anyway. How very … 1950s.
But you can never aspire to manhood.
Funny, but I recall a time when gender-nonconforming women being denied their womanhood (or, in modern progressive speak, having their womanhood erased) on the basis of how they failed to perform womanhood appropriately was considered a pillar of misogyny. Insisting on the full dignity of womanhood for women who didn’t want to wear makeup or dress like sex dolls or become mothers or become nurses or teachers used to be one of the causes celebres of feminism, as I also recall.
Now it seems that feminists, or people who insist they are feminists, are the ones who think you are only a woman if you actively choose to construct yourself as one every day — otherwise you are not a woman, and it is a deep injury to your psyche for anyone to consider you such. All in all, it seems like a pretty regressive stance to take, one that damages women individually and collectively.
That’s not quite true. “Female” (and “male”) can be used for any sexually dimorphous species, but “woman” (and “man”) is specific to humans (there are female, but not women, gingko trees). I think that’s why “female” can be insulting–it downplays the humanness of women.