A name by any other rose…

Why words matter - trans edition

What’s in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet - Romeo & Juliet, Act II, Scene II

Calling a rose an orchid no more makes it an orchid than calling an orchid a rose makes it a rose. Nor can calling a rose bush an orchid plant cause it to sprout orchids or calling an orchid plant a rose bush cause it to produce rose petals. In 2022, I wrote a piece about words having meaning, also titled A name by any other rose… In it, I discussed the importance of words having concrete meaning if they are to facilitate meaningful discussion.

Since then, I have thought further on this importance - it is, without a doubt, critical to existence as a society. Without communication, a society is doomed to failure. This was illustrated most poignantly by the confusion that arose when dialects were diversified during the building of a Brobdingnagian tower in Babel.

These days, the English language is under assault. It is true, over time, the definitions of some words “evolve,” but there still must remain commonality for words to mean anything. Unfortunately, we’ve moved from the absolute, to the abstract, to the absurd.

Let’s begin our vocabular voyage with a term that has been quite controversial over the past few years, one on which I touched in my previous piece: “woman.” This is, however, where I depart from the methodology of my previous piece. Here we’re going to discuss dictionary definitions, and we will do so using the Merriam-Webster online dictionary (perhaps with occasional reference to an additional authority).

woman (noun)

1 a: an adult female person

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman

That’s about as simple as it gets. Still, people want to argue then over what it means to be “a female.” Again turning to MW:

female (noun)

1 a: a female person : a woman or a girl

b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

Relying on the first definition would lead to circularity. Thus, the second definition is appropriate, and rightly describes a “woman.” Some might argue that the use of “female” in the definition of “woman” is adjectival, not nominative (yes, this is a bit pedantic, but pertinent). So, what is the adjectival definition of “female”?

female (adjective)

1 a (1): of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs

ibid.

Again, it has to do with the gender that generally generates the greater gamete. This is the definition of “woman” as it has been since the beginning and as it ever shall be. This is why men cannot claim to be women, because they are not women. Men can never produce eggs nor bear children (they don’t have wombs). No amount of genital mutilation or hormonal manipulation will change this.

Of course, not to be exclusive, the editors of the dictionary have acquiesced and included in the adjectival definition of female the following:

1 b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male

ibid.

This is where we depart the concrete and move to the abstract. This does not provide an objective definition but instead relies on the subjectivity of sentiment - how someone feels. But definitions of words cannot be based upon feeling. If a word means whatever someone feels it means, then it means nothing at all. We cannot as a society communicate if the essence of our expressions is established by emotion.

Such abstractness leads to circularity as well. Looking up the definition of “male” to find that of which “female” is the opposite, one finds a definition that relies on the definition of “female”:

1 b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of female

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male

If male is simply the opposite of female, and female is the opposite of male, then what is either?

Not being satisfied, however, even with the abstract, maladapted males have opted for a new term: trans-woman. Let’s pick this one apart, shall we?

We’ve already provided a concrete denotation of the word “woman,” so what does “trans-woman” mean?

The dictionary denotation of the prefix “trans” clarifies:

trans (prefix)

1: on or to the other side of : across : beyond

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trans

So then, a “trans-woman” would be “on the other side” of a woman? “across” from a woman? “beyond” a woman? Whatever it is, it does not mean “woman” nor “equal to” a woman.

Even using the chemical definitions from which the usage of cis has come into use to denote normal people (yes, I said it):

In the example on the left, the chlorine atoms can be opposite or across from each other in which case it is called the "trans" isomer. If the the chlorine atoms are next to or adjacent each other, the isomer is called " cis".

Cis & Trans Isomers of Alkanes

Again, trans here means “opposite.” So, in reality, a trans-woman is the opposite of a woman. And what is the opposite of a woman? All together now - the opposite of a woman is a man. Thus, “trans-woman” actually means “man,” and that is precisely the case. A trans-woman is a man.

We can even take this one further into the farcical. Consider the term trans-phobe. As already shown, the prefix trans means “opposite.” Add to that the suffix phobe which means, “one fearing or averse to (something)”, a trans-phobe would be the opposite of a fearful person. So, a person who is confident, at peace, assured, unconcerned (choose your antonym for fear). Such an appellation, though cast as an aspersion, should be considered complimentary.

The abject asininity of it all is apparent, but the purpose isn’t always. As I stated earlier, society cannot be sustained without prevailing parlance. When the meanings of words are degraded and distorted, society crumbles, as did that of the city of Babel. When one considers that cause and effect, it becomes easier to understand why some continue to push for twisted terminology.

From “trans-woman” to “lived experience”* to so many other misaligned meanings, there are those who are working to destroy the society that our forebears built in order to replace it with a distorted and depraved one of their own device. If we wish to retain the culture we’ve relished for almost 250 years, we must push back against the perversion of our patois.

---

*Regarding “lived experience,” though it has gained popular use, it is a ridiculous redundancy. The word “experience,” unless qualified with another term such as “vicarious,” implies something through which someone has “lived”:

experience (noun)

1 a: direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge

b: the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation

2 a: practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity

b: the length of such participation

3: something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through

4 a: the conscious events that make up an individual life

b: the events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation or humankind generally

5: the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experience

It appears preceding “experience” with “lived” is meant for emphasis or to somehow imply something unique to a particular person or group; nonetheless, it is a preposterous preface.