LGBT+ and the War for the Dictionary
This is the battlefield
To roughly quote a Doug Wilson-ism, “The battle we’re in is a battle for control of the dictionary.”
What words mean and how they are used is a precursor to how truth is told. If we accept false definitions for words and terms, we’ve already lost the battle when we have to use those words and terms to argue a point.
It’s this war for the dictionary that is at the heart of the LGBT issue.
Notice “educational” posts like this one that go around all June long:
Why are they sharing educational posts on “inclusive language?” Because none of this is normal. They have to attempt to wrest control of the dictionary away from truth in order to get buy-in.
And they know it, too.
Kevin Jennings, the homosexual man who used his spot in the Obama White House to press the issue forward to where it is today with regard to LGBT acceptance in schools, had this to say about the terminology war:
"Their language -- ‘promoting homosexuality’ is one example -- is laced with subtle and not-so- subtle innuendo that we are ‘after their kids.’ We must learn from the abortion struggle, where the clever claiming of the term ‘pro-life’ allowed those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to their advantage, to make sure that we do not allow ourselves to be painted into a corner before the debate even begins.
…
Finding the effective frame for your community is the key to victory. It must be linked to universal values that everyone in the community has in common. In Massachusetts, no one could speak up against our frame and say, 'Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves': this allowed us to set the terms for debate.”[1]
In short, it’s a propaganda war they’re seeking to win through the use of terminology battles.
So let’s look at a few examples of terminology we can’t afford to cede:
Pronouns
It takes a great deal of hubris to say you were born in the wrong body and it should be molded into what you want it to be. It takes a considerable deal more to insist the entire language bend to your whims.
People with XY chromosomes are he’s and him’s, and people with XX chromosomes are she’s and her’s. Always have been, always will be.
Some have leaned on Christian charity and said we should practice “pronoun hospitality” and acknowledge people’s preferences so as to not be divisive. But to do so is to shove truth in a dumpster in the name of unity, and to accept the framing that the individual is god. We can’t do that.
“Gay Marriage”
This is where much of this all started, just the one acceptance that got a foot in the door. There is no “gay marriage” and “traditional” or “biblical marriage.” There is marriage. That’s it.
Call it a same sex union, call it “gay mirage,” call it anything other than what it’s not - marriage.
“Trans man/woman”
It gets awful confusing trying to figure out if we’re taking about a man pretending to be a woman or a woman pretending to be a man. So let’s use those terms instead. There’s no such thing as a trans man or a trans woman, just one pretending to be the other.
MtF (male to female) and FtM are useful shorthand, but they grant too much legitimacy. They aren’t actually going from male to female. It’s all pretend, and we need to steadily beat that drum.
“Drag queens”
They aren’t drag queens, they’re transvestites. LGBT advocates like to point to old TV shows in which drag was used for comedic effect to say “See, you didn’t care about it then!” as if there is not a gigantic difference in both the degree and nature of what they’re doing.
(Though I do believe previous generations were far too casual about the matter. Laughing about it is the first step toward acceptance.)
They aren’t “queens,” and the practice comes with no such glamour. They’re transvestites. It’s a perfectly good word, and we should use it.
“Maps and YAPs”
This is an easy one. There are no minor-attracted persons or youth-attracted persons. There are pedophiles, and there are non-pedophiles.
This is the door opened by those Christians who compromised with homosexuality to say that desire isn’t wrong, just action.
Combine “love is love,” “I was born this way and can’t help it,” and “children can consent to gender reassignment” and you can see where this thing goes.
“Gender”
The perverse, monstrous Dr. John Money gave us this accursed split between sex and gender in the 1950s. It’s the idea that you are born with a biological sex, revealed in your physical features, but your gender is subject to your own wishes and whims.
Your sex determines your gender. The visual of men pretending to be women towering over their “peers” shows us how inescapable all of this is.
“Gender-affirming care”
This is why the gender distinction matters. They claim that hormone treatments and genital mutilations are “gender-affirming” because they are rearranging the physical traits of sex to match the psychological traits of gender.
Again, your sex is irrevocably your gender. No amount of surgery and injections change that. So it’s not gender-affirming care, it’s body-destroying care.
“Homosexuality”
If you’re feeling particularly spicy, it’s actually sodomy. This short wires their excuse that “ackshually homosexuality wasn’t a word in the Bible until the most recent versions.” And, it paints a reminder of the nature of the act and how God feels about it.
Don’t forfeit the dictionary
One of the biggest tactics in all of this is to keep changing the terms, keep adding phrases, keep everybody on their toes. So with each new term we must think through the implications and what it is attempting to give cover for.
They don’t own the dictionary. Reality is not whatever they want it to be, and holding firm on the English language is the best way to remind them of that.
[1] - “Framing the Issue – How the Homosexual Movement Got Into the Massachusetts Schools,” MassResistance, 6 April 2010, Web, http://massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/framing_the_issue.html, 1 March 2014.