Orwell is Alive and Well
Thoughts?
IN GEORGE ORWELL’S BOOK 1984, he spent a good deal of time discussing language in the appendix at the back of the book. He pointed out that language strongly impacts how we think. By changing language, Big Brother’s INGSOC government directly controlled the minds of its citizens. It became increasingly difficult to even express ideas that were not in agreement with the party line. If you pay attention you can see this going on around you today, and the ones in charge are not shy about what they are doing either. If you do not use the allowed words, but instead use the disallowed words, you can be disciplined, fired, or even prosecuted. You will comply, or you will suffer the consequences. Let’s take a look at a few examples. The Word “Gender” This word originally was a grammatical construct, often completely arbitrary, used to assign one of the two categories masculine and feminine, to various words, including, but not limited to, pronouns. In many languages gender is assigned to inanimate objects, like pens and mountains. It is only a construct, and gender is assigned, not inherent. The word sex is unambiguous. Prior to the enforced Newspeak change, in job applications, medical forms, and anything that was used to define and describe you, the word sex was used, not gender. You were never asked for your gender, only your sex. Why? Because you are born with sex, not gender. Sex is clearly defined. You either have male genitalia, or you have female genitalia. You either have one Y chromosome and one X chromosome, or you have two X chromosomes. This is all black and white, clearly defined with no room for quibbling. You are born with a sex; you are not “assigned” a sex. You do not “identify” as a sex: You have it, right from conception. So, why the change, and when did it happen? If you will look at this Google Ngram graph , you will see when it happened. Prior to 1980, almost no one used the word gender to describe your sex. You were either of the male sex, or the female sex, and that was that. But then, the Newspeak agitators trotted out the word “gender.” For example, there were “gender studies” in colleges, which were really women’s studies for feminists. Bit by bit, the word gender crept into places where it had no business being. Suddenly, you no longer had a sex, but you had a gender. At first this was just incorrect English. I remember in the 1990s scratching my head trying to understand why these people were intentionally misusing the word. But today you see the destructive method in their madness. They intended to unleash a wave of chaos upon us all. They set us up at the end of last century for the mess you find yourself in today. Today there are dozens of “genders” and you are supposed to bow down to them all, as if they were real. This would not be possible without the transition from the scientifically unambiguous term sex to the completely arbitrary and evermore ambiguous term gender. Newspeak matters. Words matter. They will limit what you can think and how you can think. If you use the word gender when you mean sex, you are part of the problem. All the talking heads on TV are part of the problem, of course. All the politicians are part of the problem. Teachers in school are part of this problem. In forty years the change has been so complete that today you must follow the Newspeak changes, or you will suffer real consequences. Big Brother is quite unforgiving. The Word “Gay” When I was born, and throughout my school years, “gay” meant “Happy, joyful, lively, festive, bright, or colourful.” Today, thanks to the Newspeak agitators, the original meanings of the word are described by the dictionary as being “Dated; possibly archaic.” As you can see from the following Google Ngram graph, the Newspeak change to the misuse of the word “gay” came along about a decade after the misuse of the word “gender.” This insulting switch was immediately apparent to anyone who was paying attention. Suddenly Christmas carols that talked about “donning gay apparel” sounded perverse. All of the old books and movies, wherein characters where happily talking about how joyous they were feeling by describing themselves as gay, were perceived as smeared by the homosexual brush. That which had been good, something to be aspired to, started to sound disgusting to those who lived through the word’s transition in meaning. And a group with an incredibly high suicide rate was instantly labeled as being happy and joyous. And those who were actually happy and joyous suddenly sounded like homosexuals to many when the word was being used with the old meaning intended. A whole generation has grown up without even knowing that this was done to the language. The word “gay” has forever been polluted by Newspeak. Pronouns This Newspeak change came in two parts. The first part was the near-complete destruction of English grammar in order to keep the Cultural Marxists happy. Suddenly, the standard rule for pronouns was cast away and a significant derailment of grammar was the result. A pronoun is, by definition, a word that replaces and refers to a noun. “A man goes to the store, and he buys a hammer.” In that sentence, the noun “man” is replaced by the pronoun “he.” The grammar rule that covers this is that the pronoun must match the antecedent in number. (If possible it must also match in gender, which is why the word gender actually exists. This is grammar, not biology.) If the noun is neutral, as with an inanimate object, the pronoun will usually have a neuter gender, e.g. “it.” If the antecedent of the singular noun is a person, but the sex is unknown, the pronoun usually defaults to the masculine, while retaining the proper number: “he,” “him,” etc. [In cases where the writer wants to stress the inclusion of both sexes, he could say “he or she,” “his or hers,” etc., and that is also grammatically correct.] This was the way English was taught before the Cultural Marxist takeover in the second half of the twentieth century. However, today, all our standards are thrown out in any case where keeping them might offend the parasites or impede their agenda: One must always assume, for example, that males are evil, especially White males. Today, you will hear college professors, and teachers of all stripes, completely destroy the English language without batting an eye. If you take a writing course, you will hear something like this: When your character takes their keys and gets into their car and drives away, they will have emotions that you need to describe. These are people whose profession is to teach you how to use words. But they get it all wrong. This is how that sentence should have been constructed: When your character takes his keys and gets into his car and drives away, he will have emotions that you need to describe. If you know the sex of the character is female, so you are talking about a woman specifically, it should read: When your character takes her keys and gets into her car and drives away, she will have emotions that you need to describe. These are people who are supposedly teaching you how to use English. It is like a dental expert teaching you to pull teeth using a sledgehammer, because a certain powerful group prefers it that way. This is everywhere today; in the media, in the schools, and wherever language is used. It is another change that was forced upon society to keep its citizens mentally in line. Forget history, forget grammar — and stay with the herd, comrade. Today there is a part two to this wrecking ball the Newspeak crowd has unleashed. Now there are “preferred pronouns,” that are made up on the fly by dainty little fools who tap dance around reality in hopes of making their fantasies come true. If you haven’t figured this one out on your own, there is no point in talking about it.
ChatGPT
Your analysis of language changes and their social implications presents a compelling argument rooted in George Orwell's concept of Newspeak from "1984." Orwell demonstrated how controlling language can limit freedom of thought, and you draw parallels to modern societal changes.
The Word “Gender”
The shift from using "sex" to "gender" indeed represents a significant change in how we discuss identity. This change reflects broader social movements and the recognition of the distinction between biological sex and gender identity. While "sex" refers to biological characteristics, "gender" encompasses the roles, behaviors, and identities that society considers appropriate for men and women. This shift allows for a more inclusive understanding of human identity, acknowledging that not everyone fits neatly into binary categories.
The Word “Gay”
Language evolution can indeed lead to confusion or discomfort for those accustomed to older usages. The word "gay" transitioning from meaning "happy" to being synonymous with homosexual identity illustrates how language reflects cultural shifts. While it may feel like a loss of the word's original meaning, it also signifies progress in social acceptance and visibility for the LGBTQ+ community.
Pronouns
The use of gender-neutral pronouns and the inclusion of "they" as a singular pronoun reflects an effort to respect diverse gender identities and create inclusive language. While this may disrupt traditional grammar rules, language is not static. It evolves to meet the needs of its speakers. The adoption of new pronouns may seem challenging, but it represents a broader commitment to acknowledging and respecting individual identities.
Conclusion
Language is a powerful tool that shapes our understanding of the world. Changes in language can feel unsettling, especially when they challenge long-held norms. However, these changes often reflect deeper societal shifts toward inclusivity and respect for diversity. While it's important to be critical of how language is used and who controls its evolution, it's also crucial to recognize the potential for language to foster a more inclusive and understanding society.
Your points highlight the importance of being aware of language changes and their implications, echoing Orwell's cautionary tale. It's a call to remain vigilant about how language can shape and limit thought while also embracing its potential to drive positive social change.