When Francis Maude used the phrase “kitchen supper”, the commentariat had a field day, branding such lingo “alien to a large proportion of the population”. Why hasn’t there been a similar reaction to Maude’s government’s consultation on same-sex marriage? That document also uses language that is “alien to a large proportion of the population”. In fact, some of it is pure gibberish, made up of the kind of words and phrases you don’t normally hear outside of Queer Studies departments at those former polytechnics that now masquerade as universities.
Consider question No 3. Any member of the public who decides to give the government his or her views on same-sex marriage is firstly asked “What is your sexual orientation?”, is secondly asked “What is your gender?”, and is then asked the following: “Is your gender identity the same as the gender you were assigned at birth?”
You what? There are so many weird things in that sentence it is hard to know where to start. It seems pretty clear that what is really being asked is this: “Have you ever had a sex change?” But in an effort to appease the social constructionist feminist lobby (which prefers the term “gender” to “sex”) and to avoid offending the transgender community (which has gone off the phrase “sex change” in recent years), the government couldn’t possibly pose the question in such stark, easily understandable terms. So instead it gets all verbose and tongue-tied by enquiring after our “gender” and “identity” and the question of when and by whom those things were “assigned” to us.
The phrasing of that question shows how utterly mainstream so-called Queer Theory has become, so much so that it is now embraced by the Conservative Party. The idea that gender is an identity, and the notion that it is something “assigned” to us at birth (by those evil doctors who judge us by what is between our legs!), comes straight from the crankier corners of academia. It is an utterly otherworldly outlook on life, where everything is seen as being both socially constructed and also open to being dismantled, so that we are no longer “born a certain sex” but rather are “assigned a certain gender identity”, which we can later discard in favour of a new one if we like. Yay!
Who uses language like that? Who says things like “gender identity” and asks questions like “what gender were you assigned at birth?” Only an infinitesimally small number of academics and activists who have had their noses buried in postmodern tomes for so long that they have forgotten how to speak normal English. I know more people who say “kitchen supper” than say “gender identity assignment”. Yet where politicians’ posh utterances are lampooned, their queerspeak is given the nod. It is a fact of life that the further removed the elite and its hangers-on become from everyday people, the more they start to speak in their own internal, almost coded language. And if that question in the consultation on same-sex marriage is anything to go by, then it seems pretty clear that this debate about marriage isn’t really aimed at us, the little people, but rather is an internal chinwag between political and academic cliques.
(Source: The Telegraph)