Problematic Pronouns: Resisting Their Cultural Takeover

The March Towards Cultural Hegemony

It’s important to acknowledge that not all DEI movements are equal. Some have been a constructive force in protecting vulnerable groups from discrimination. For instance, Singapore’s proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation (the “WFL”) prohibits workplace discrimination based on limited “protected characteristics” which include “age, nationality, sex, marital and pregnancy status, caregiving responsibility, race, religion, language, and disability and mental conditions”.

How DEI Becomes a Trojan Horse

Here, we see the fundamental mechanics of DEI in action. A marginalised group is first identified based on discernible characteristics. Then it is granted special privileges or protections in the name of inclusivity. This dynamic illustrates the power of DEI-framed movements. They can confer special recognition, privileges and/or protections upon a specially defined group.

DEI movements certainly have merits, especially in addressing deserving groups. However, problems arise when groups weaponize DEI to further their agenda, masquerading under the noble guise of ‘cultivating inclusivity and respect for all’. This perversion of DEI is evident in the Movement.

It seeks to procure special rights and privileges for individuals based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression (“SOGIE”), to the detriment of those with differing views. In doing so, it insidiously attempts to dominate the cultural narrative by redefining sexuality and hate speech.

For more on the risks of DEI being weaponised, click here.

Ever-Evolving Definitions of Sexual Orientation and Gender

The Movement advocates that sexual orientation, understood as the individual’s capacity for sexual attraction, is “fluid” occurring on a “spectrum”. (You may recall that just yesterday, we were told that sexual orientation was fixed because homosexuals were “born this way”). Similarly, ‘gender identity’, the gender one identifies with, “may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth”.

For example, Tom, assigned male at birth and previously identifying as heterosexual using he/him pronouns, may eventually identify as bisexual or gay, and prefer they/them pronouns. (Tom is not allowed to become ex-gay, however. That would be heresy.)

The Movement now promotes sexuality and gender as an interplay of choice, and biological, psychological, and sociocultural factors. This new anthropology is a redefinition of the binary and biological traditional view, which holds that gender and sexuality are biologically determined and fixed at birth. Male and female are distinct and complementary categories, and heterosexuality is the normative sexual orientation.

Newspeak: Big Brother Will Police Your Language

The Movement emphasises that one cannot assume sexual orientation and gender identity based on biological sex. It frames “misgendering”, the act of using incorrect pronouns, and “deadnaming”, using a transgender person’s former name, as “acts of violence” and “attempt[s] to bully [LGBT people]”.

The Movement positions these acts as harmful hate speech, which severely affects targets’ “mental and physical health” due to the potential trauma of undermining or invalidating their self-identity.

Accordingly, the Movement promotes “inclusive language” which involves using gender-neutral terms, avoiding gender assumptions, normalising sharing pronouns when introducing oneself, and using preferred pronouns.

The Movement’s redefined hate speech imposes an intrusive ‘duty to say’, meaning a responsibility to use certain language, in addition to a ‘duty to refrain’, meaning a responsibility to avoid certain language.

This redefinition amounts to compelled speech because speakers are forced to use specific language while avoiding others.

In doing so, speakers implicitly affirm the Movement’s underpinning understanding of sexuality and gender, even if it conflicts with their beliefs and convictions. Essentially, the listener’s freedom from offence is prioritised over the speaker’s freedom of conscience.

While there may be advantages in having a regime that governs offence, it is not difficult to see how such a regime can quickly become oppressive, especially when those claiming to be offended are the ones who dictate the terms of what constitutes offence and acceptable speech.

The Strategy for Cultural Domination

Herein lies the Movement’s strategy for cultural domination.

Although its SOGIE worldview is scientifically controversial, unsettled, and hotly politicised, it is paraded as immutable truth. This worldview is advanced by redefining ‘hate speech’ to establish a cultural hegemony of uniform speech (aka ‘inclusive language’) that validates and affirms its underlying SOGIE ideology.

Various degrees of social pressure are exerted to advance its cultural vision. Pressures range from the subtle normalisation of pronouns, to overt cancelling, name-calling, and harassment of persons who do not conform to the ‘inclusive’ language norms.

These non-conformers are positioned as bullies towards LGBT people (just look at the comments section of our Ellen-Elliot Page post). Scrutinizing the Movement’s claim of creating a ‘welcoming and inclusive environment for all’, we see that diversity, inclusivity and respect extend to all except those with differing convictions and beliefs.