Published:
July 28th, 2017
This week marks 50 years since the partial decriminalisation of
homosexuality, and lots has changed. Laws have changed. Public attitudes have
changed. Institutions have changed. These might all appear
obvious.
But one of the subtler changes has been the reshaping of language; the
battle of words.
The sexual revolution has brought with it a new vocabulary: 'gay',
'straight', 'queer', 'sexual orientation', 'gender', 'gender identity',
'homophobia', 'LGBT community', 'transgender', 'sex assigned at birth', 'fight
for equality' and much more.
The sexual revolutionaries have put immense pressure on society to learn
this new vocabulary, and have for the most part succeeded in mainstreaming
it.
Just think about the phrase 'I feel very gay today' and how it would be
interpreted in 1917 and 2017. In both years, it would probably garner the same
response ('good for you') but for very different
reasons.
Introducing new words, and redefining old ones, has hugely
affected the debate:
Confusion
First, new words create a fog in the public discourse. They enable you to
talk about a topic without being challenged. It's a bit like using big words or
long sentences. Politicians do this all the time. Fans of Yes
Minister will identify strongly with the notion
of 'pulling a Sir
Humphrey'.
So, if I can talk in the language of Queer Theory and gender
mainstreaming, speak of 'sex assigned at birth' and (self-proclaimed) 'gender
identity', and the 'equality of all sexual orientations and gender identities',
I can make myself sound like an expert when in fact the concepts I am speaking
about have no basis in reality.
Those who do not speak the language are seen as failing to
understand, and everyone listening is confused. But the person with the clever
words must surely be right.
Immersion
Second, introducing new words can help flood the minds of your opponents,
making people think about sex, sexuality and gender theory as much as
possible.
Thinking about all the possible 'sexual orientations', 'gender
identities' and types of relationships gives credence to the theory behind the
movement. Gay activists Kirk and Madsen in their 1987
article 'The Overhauling of Straight America' spoke of the need to"talk
about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible", and the new
language serves this purpose.
Think about the impact of changing the word 'homosexual' to 'gay'. 'Gay'
is a positive word; historically it was understood to mean 'cheerful'. But 'gay'
also associates homosexuality with the 'gay identity'; there's a whole culture
that goes with it; gay bars and gay publications and gay pride and so on. It
affects all of life. Now, combine this with the concept of 'sexual orientation'
which effectively makes all sexual expression morally equal. So, equally, there
must be an identity associated with all sexual
orientations.
And,
through the power of language, we all must define ourselves by our sexuality,
and think about it all the time. It must affect all of life, and so all of life
will be sexualised.
Implication
Third, controlling the language enables you to beg the
question.
Many terms used convey an attitude (positive or negative) towards the
issue being discussed. This is often deliberate and very
powerful.
For example, a friend might ask me: 'do you support the fight for
equality for the LGBT community?'
If I say 'yes', then I've just signed up to bless same-sex 'marriage',
homosexual sexual acts, 'sex-change' operations, and gay adoption; things which
God calls sin. But if I say 'no', I am against equality, against a whole
community, and part of the reason why there needs to be a 'fight' at all. I must
be 'homophobic'.
Of course, I'm not against equality. It's just that the LGBT movement
is not a movementfor equality. Marriage was not made equal in law in 2013. It was
redefined. The movement has championed the notion of 'equality' when its real
agenda is to redefine things – redefine marriage, redefine sex, redefine gender,
redefine the family.
But if you frame it as 'equality', who will stand against
you?
Clarity
So, next time you're in a discussion with someone about sex or marriage,
and they use a fuzzy term, why not ask them: 'What do you mean?' Hopefully
you'll get an interesting discussion out of it, and you might just expose some
assumptions behind the language. Christian
Concern.
.jpeg)