How "XYZ-ophobic" is "begging the question" and " 'He/she' is now 'they' "

This relates to this article printed after this one, in the N.Y. Times, on Phobic as a weapon, that includes my comment at this link, with two readers who agree with my view, which given how it goes against the grain of the writer and stereotypical Times readers, is a real affirmation for my thoughts.

It’s hard enough to try to express thoughts in words without the abundance of traps that make language serve two purposes, conveying viewpoints and information while also remediation of injustices in society.   Among species that have different words for the two sexes,  it’s customary to use the male as indicating both genders.  The most common is our pet “dog,” which in casual discussion can also mean what in breeder circles is referred to with a word that is a serious insult when referring to a human female.

We have no official agency for the English language such as the French Academy which puts out an official dictionary of usage. Their last one was published in 1935 but they are working on an update.  So in the U.S. we have several benchmark style manuals which include words in flux, and of course many competing dictionaries.   This article about current changes in the Washington Post was interesting for the extensive discussion of the mixed gender pronoun, which has been a thorn for decades since the current women’s movement of the 1960s.   Here’s a peek from the article:

There was one change, though, that I knew would cause controversy. For many years, I’ve been rooting for — but stopping short of employing — what is known as the singular they as the only sensible solution to English’s lack of a gender-neutral third-person singular personal pronoun. (Everyone has their own opinion about this.) He once filled that role, but a male default hasn’t been palatable for decades. Using she in a sort of linguistic affirmative action strikes me as patronizing. Alternating he and she is silly, as are he/she, (s)he and attempts at made-up pronouns. The only thing standing in the way of they has been the appearance of incorrectness — the lack of acceptance among educated readers.

Often, the change in meaning of a word can be contentious, and then when researched become fascinating as for this diary I wrote in 2012.   It showed how the word “Hoi Polloi” was used became very personal, but in researching this, going back to articles from the 19th century, I learned a great deal about language, how some words develop an emotional aspect.  This one for instance, no matter whether one uses the original Greek meaning, or the one used by myself, and the Three Stooges, still is denigrating to the perceived target population.

And of course anyone reading this knows well that political ideology comes complete with its own language, IE,  death or estate taxes,  pro life or choice,  or the buzzwords, equality or opportunity.  I’m not sure how this can ever be solved, but it should be.  When the very choice of words defines ones political orientation, and more and more it is this, rather than the substance of an argument that is attended to, there not much hope for real exchanges of perspectives.  The word itself, contains the arguments as the proliferation of the form,  “XYZ-ophobic.”   It  means that the opposition to XYZ is inherently not based on any rationality, so responding to such a question tacitly is accepting the answer that is within the question.   And speaking of changing meanings of words and terms, the phrase, “Roger hates XYZs because he’s “XYZ-ophobic” is actually a rare example of “begging the question”

This is one example of why “preaching to the choir” is so prevalent.  As humans we need to belong, to feel part of a tribe, religion, country or ideology.  When we speak only among ourselves, we learn the language and get slapped down if we vary from it.   This has been working for quite a while now, but the question is whether it is compatible with a complex diverse polity such as the United States of America as we face ever greater stresses.