Words and changing meanings

Moderator Action: Split from the Ask the transman thread.

Brighteye said:

Do you think that changing the words can change peoples' minds?

Click to expand...

Certainly changing words can change people's minds. Indeed, words are the only things we have to change people's minds.

I like your flyer analogy; I think it's a pretty good point. Still, I think this particular argument isn't really germane to the point of the thread.

Brighteye said:

Don't you think that whatever word you choose will have the same connotations? Is it really worthwhile thinking up new terms, when each word will inevitably acquire the baggage of the old, since it describes the same thing, as well as some extra baggage of 'political correctness'?
Do you think that changing the words can change peoples' minds?

How is my analogy off the mark?
Are hormones not a signal then? You used that term yourself; I simply borrowed it as one on which we could agree.
Exposure to androgen will create a boy. Exposure to lack of androgen will create a girl then. One path or the other is chosen at that point.
I don't see a problem with my analogy, and nor do I see why you are so irate about hormones when this doesn't affect the importance of hormones.
And yes, of course I will interpret research and facts how I like. I do have a mind of my own. I like to use it. No-one has shown how my interpretation is wrong.

Shall I create another analogy?
Imagine that I plan to fly to a city, but I could choose to drive. I am currently packing for my holiday. Am I a flyer? At what point do I become a flyer? I think it's when I start flying. At this point I am a flyer, and not a driver.
You seem to be suggesting that I'm a flyer even when still packing for my holiday.

Click to expand...

Exposure to androgen will eliminate the default or pre set program nature has which is to be a girl. Girl is the default system, default is pre set program. In addition the latest scientific evidence points out a decrease of testosterone in our species due to the excess of toxins or estrogenic compound in our environment which is creating an increase in feminine men in our world. So it appears that nature is saying something, but we are not listening.

My whole point here is the brain is pre set unless it is changed by a chemical or hormone which we will call testosterone. There are many things that happen to alter this development which creates the variety we see in our GLBT community. Depending how far one is from the typical development will depend on how one identifies.

In a female to male trannsexual the womb had excess androgen which masculinized the brain, in my case it was my mothers hormonal therapy that created the event. In a male to female the default female brain was not altered due to lack of sufficient androgen or faulty communication, but the genitals where changed.

Your interpretation is your interpretation, I am no one to prove you wrong, you have the right to think and believe what you want. You see it is human nature to disagree and the reason why we have so many theories in our world, and religion for that matter. One God, yet trillions of religions. It is our nature to disagree and see things differently, lucky we are in the USA which allows us to freely express our views and different believes. So please exercise that right and move on.

Plotinus said:

Certainly changing words can change people's minds. Indeed, words are the only things we have to change people's minds.

I like your flyer analogy; I think it's a pretty good point. Still, I think this particular argument isn't really germane to the point of the thread.

Click to expand...

Words gradually change meanings (sadly), but is it really possible to change people's thoughts about a subject simply by substituting a new word for an old one? I think that this brute force approach doesn't work.
The way to change people's minds is subtly, and, sadly, with time. If the substitution is brought to their attention then they'll simply transfer all the thoughts you didn't want them to have to the new word.

markangeloc said:

Exposure to androgen will eliminate the default or pre set program nature has which is to be a girl. Girl is the default system, default is pre set program. In addition the latest scientific evidence points out a decrease of testosterone in our species due to the excess of toxins or estrogenic compound in our environment which is creating an increase in feminine men in our world. So it appears that nature is saying something, but we are not listening.
[lots of other stuff]

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this. You have good points here. I was simply arguing about the way you phrased it, which showed what I took to be a misunderstanding.
Maybe it did. Maybe you still do. But all that you've written in this post doesn't really affect what I was trying to say.

Brighteye said:

Don't you think that whatever word you choose will have the same connotations? Is it really worthwhile thinking up new terms, when each word will inevitably acquire the baggage of the old, since it describes the same thing, as well as some extra baggage of 'political correctness'?
Do you think that changing the words can change peoples' minds?

Click to expand...

Oh yes, language does affect how we think. I can relate to my own experience.

I am a Chinese. I grew up in a time when China was more culturally conservative (late eighties-early nineties) than today. The only transsexuals we knew at that time were the Thai Kathoeys. The Chinese term, however, is not a translation of the word "Kathoey". It is a compound "rén-yāo". Rén means human; yāo has a number of negative meanings (roughly quote from a dictionary): as an adjective it means seductively gorgeous, wierd, ominous, evil, bewitching and coquettish. As a noun, it means abnormal things or phenomena, and (the Chinese version of) succubi. Taken together rényāo has a connotation not only of a third sex, but also of a subhuman - one that is not worthy to be called a human. This word is probably more offensive than shemale or fag-got.

Now, do you dare to introduce yourself as an Untermensch? I didn't. And for years I have cursed myself for my "perversive" desire. It was only after I came to England for a college degree that I actually talked to someone else about my crossdressing, and finally met with other transsexuals. Only then I started to think that crossdressing was, perhaps, not so wrong after all. Why would I think like that? Because I realised that I could be crossdressing and not be a rényāo.

In this decade a literal translation of transsexual (biànxìng rén) appeared in Chinese mainstream media. As an example, Harisu, a famous Korean transsexual singer, is only refered to as a biànxìng rén, or a variant biànxìng měinǚ (transsexual beauty). Coincidentally or not, in the last few years there has been a surge of sex reassignment surgeries in China (which never happened before '90s) accompanied by a series of non-derogatory reports.

Transvestite has yet to find an agreed translation. Popular terms include biànzhuāng (trans-vest), bànzhuāng (dress-clothing) yìzhuāng (change-clothing). In any case, these words have much less connotations than rényāo. In a popular novel by Lily Zhong, "The Transvestic Cute Woman" (Biànzhuāng Qiào Jiārén), the author portrayed a man disguised as a white-collar woman in modern Shanghai. When a friend jested on her breasts with a reference to rényāo, the protagonist replied: "Don't bring up rényāo, I will never be one." And he does not mean that he is not a transsexual. He means that he is not a subhuman.

lassia said:

Oh yes, language does affect how we think. I can relate to my own experience.
...The Chinese term, however, is not a translation of the word "Kathoey". It is a compound "rén-yāo". Rén means human; yāo has a number of negative meanings (roughly quote from a dictionary): as an adjective it means seductively gorgeous, wierd, ominous, evil, bewitching and coquettish. As a noun, it means abnormal things or phenomena, and (the Chinese version of) succubi. Taken together rényāo has a connotation not only of a third sex, but also of a subhuman - one that is not worthy to be called a human. This word is probably more offensive than shemale or fag-got.

Click to expand...

So compound words can be made of compounds that are inappropriate. But if I make up a word to describe something (a new gene perhaps) and it develops bad connotations because of what the gene does, does inventing a new word change the way people think?
Surely if all that changes is the word then people will do exactly the same with the new as they did with the old?
If, on the other hand, people start to think differently, then a new word is unnecessary.
Either way, I don't see the point in messing around with the language. It's people's attitudes to certain ideas and concepts that matters. Language is simply how they express these attitudes.

No, because words carry over baggage from previous ways they have been used. Language doesn't simply express concepts - it changes them. For example, if I call you "childish", that has different overtones from calling you "childlike", even though they mean exactly the same thing. Same with "normal" and "ordinary". Everyone wants to be normal, but no-one wants to be ordinary, even though they mean the same thing. You're assuming that words derive their connotations solely from their referents, but while there is such derivation, of course, it is not a one-way process. Referents derive their connotations from words too. If I discover a new flower and call it the Fish 'n' Chip Stinky Poo, it will not be perceived in the same way as if I'd called it the Angelic Paradise Bloom, even if the thing being referred to is exactly the same thing. And, yes, perhaps over time those phrases will change their connotation to match the flower, if the association is strong enough. But that's only half the story. What you call something will always affect how it is perceived, as every spin doctor knows. That's why, although people deride the attempt to replace offensive terms for certain groups or conditions with less offensive ones as "political correctness", it is actually a good and important thing to attempt. I think lassia's example is an extremely good and interesting one.

Plotinus said:

No, because words carry over baggage from previous ways they have been used. Language doesn't simply express concepts - it changes them. For example, if I call you "childish", that has different overtones from calling you "childlike", even though they mean exactly the same thing. Same with "normal" and "ordinary". Everyone wants to be normal, but no-one wants to be ordinary, even though they mean the same thing. You're assuming that words derive their connotations solely from their referents, but while there is such derivation, of course, it is not a one-way process. Referents derive their connotations from words too. If I discover a new flower and call it the Fish 'n' Chip Stinky Poo, it will not be perceived in the same way as if I'd called it the Angelic Paradise Bloom, even if the thing being referred to is exactly the same thing. And, yes, perhaps over time those phrases will change their connotation to match the flower, if the association is strong enough. But that's only half the story. What you call something will always affect how it is perceived, as every spin doctor knows. That's why, although people deride the attempt to replace offensive terms for certain groups or conditions with less offensive ones as "political correctness", it is actually a good and important thing to attempt. I think lassia's example is an extremely good and interesting one.

Click to expand...

That's why I distinguished between compounds and otherwise meaningless words. Calling your flower a number of words that already have meaning inevitably associates it with those words.
The difference between calling it one pronounceable jumble of letters and another is infinitessimal. If the first jumble of letters starts to become associated with nasty smells, because your flower smells, you can't stop the name of your flower being used to mean a nasty smell by changing the name.
The new jumble of letters will develop the same meaning.

This is what people are doing with words such as transvestite and crossdresser. Both words are compounds, but the compound is of the same words. If transvestite has negative connotations (I never noticed if it does) then crossdresser will have them too.

If, on the other hand, one adopts sillier euphemisms, such as calling disabled people 'differently abled' the 'word' becomes a joke, because it's simply not accurate. Disabled people lack ability in some way; they do not have different abilities. Using different words and phrases cannot change reality.

Reality is that some people still look down on cross-dressers; that disabled people are worse off than the rest of us; that ******** people have thinking difficulties, not just learning difficulties.

Well, your last example shows just how we do need to think more carefully about language. There is a big difference between learning difficulties and other kinds of mental disability; it is possible to have a learning disability and be extremely intelligent in other respects. If you brand them all as "********", which is a pretty offensive word and not one that one normally hears these days, then you're going to mischaracterise them.

You should also bear in mind that a word that may be fairly innocent in itself can acquire negative connotations because the group it refers to are looked down upon during that period. Later, we may use a different word instead, and it may avoid gaining the same connotations because attitudes to that group have moved on. But continuing to use the old word, innocuous though it may be in itself, is a bad idea because it may perpetuate the old connotations. An example is "coloured" to refer to black people. I don't think there's much to choose between "coloured" and "black", simply as words to refer to that group of people. But "coloured" was the adjective of choice back in the 1960s and 70s when racist attitudes were more mainstream, and so to call someone "coloured" today has negative connotations. The word "black", which has replaced it as the adjective of choice, has not acquired these connotations because racism is far less socially acceptable today. So now it makes sense to say we should say "black" and not "coloured", not because of the intrinsic meaning of the words, but because of their associations.

To put it more simply, when attitudes change, it sometimes makes sense to change the words as well, because the old words have become invested with the old attitudes.

Plotinus said:

Well, your last example shows just how we do need to think more carefully about language. There is a big difference between learning difficulties and other kinds of mental disability; it is possible to have a learning disability and be extremely intelligent in other respects. If you brand them all as "********", which is a pretty offensive word and not one that one normally hears these days, then you're going to mischaracterise them.

Click to expand...

There's no such thing as an offensive word. Words have no intent; I don't see how anyone who isn't ******** can manage to take offence at a word. I have dealt many times with people who are said to have learning difficulties (my mother teaches some). Maybe there are those who are genuinely intelligent, but most of the ones I meet, and my mother mentions, fail to learn because they cannot comprehend, not because they are intelligent but have an information absorption problem.

Plotinus said:

You should also bear in mind that a word that may be fairly innocent in itself can acquire negative connotations because the group it refers to are looked down upon during that period. Later, we may use a different word instead, and it may avoid gaining the same connotations because attitudes to that group have moved on. But continuing to use the old word, innocuous though it may be in itself, is a bad idea because it may perpetuate the old connotations. An example is "coloured" to refer to black people. I don't think there's much to choose between "coloured" and "black", simply as words to refer to that group of people. But "coloured" was the adjective of choice back in the 1960s and 70s when racist attitudes were more mainstream, and so to call someone "coloured" today has negative connotations. The word "black", which has replaced it as the adjective of choice, has not acquired these connotations because racism is far less socially acceptable today. So now it makes sense to say we should say "black" and not "coloured", not because of the intrinsic meaning of the words, but because of their associations.

To put it more simply, when attitudes change, it sometimes makes sense to change the words as well, because the old words have become invested with the old attitudes.

Click to expand...

I never thought that coloured was badly regarded! There are so many terms I thought that coloured was a new word that had come along because blacks here are rarely black.
No-one I know cares about coloured/black. I went to a talk a few days ago given by such a man, who referred to himself as coloured.
As far as I know, words carry their meaning, which remains distinct from the intent behind their use. I don't think that the two should be confused.

It probably depends on where you are. In Britain, at least, it would not normally be acceptable to call a black person "coloured".

"********" is offensive because it is so often used as an insult, and because it basically judges a person in their entirety on the basis of only one characteristic, namely their mental ability. For example, someone could be mentally impaired but very moral, and someone else be very intelligent but high immoral. Why would you call the one "********" (in reference to their intellect) and not the other (in reference to their morality)? Why not call a short person "********" (in reference to their growth)?

There are learning difficulties and then there are learning difficulties. I don't know which kind your mother deals with. However, I can assure that there are plenty of people with learning difficulties who are otherwise perfectly intelligent; I have dealt with many myself. For example, many people with ADD have difficulty learning things, but are intelligent. The idea that "learning difficulties" equals "thick" is simply another prejudice that people with learning difficulties have to face on top of the problems they already have. We don't blanket-label all people with physical disabilities with a single word and deny that there is any difference between them; let's not do it with mental disabilities.

Plotinus said:

"********" is offensive because it is so often used as an insult, and because it basically judges a person in their entirety on the basis of only one characteristic, namely their mental ability.

Click to expand...

'********' is offensive when used as an insult. If not used as an insult, I really don't see how it can be offensive. What makes it offensive? It certainly is passing a judgement on someone's mental ability. If I want to summarise a person in one word I'm going to have to select one aspect of that person. I don't see a problem with judging mental ability.

Plotinus said:

For example, someone could be mentally impaired but very moral, and someone else be very intelligent but high immoral. Why would you call the one "********" (in reference to their intellect) and not the other (in reference to their morality)? Why not call a short person "********" (in reference to their growth)?

Click to expand...

Perhaps I should clarify which I mean from now on.

Plotinus said:

I can assure that there are plenty of people with learning difficulties who are otherwise perfectly intelligent; I have dealt with many myself. For example, many people with ADD have difficulty learning things, but are intelligent. The idea that "learning difficulties" equals "thick" is simply another prejudice that people with learning difficulties have to face on top of the problems they already have.

Click to expand...

Could it be that they face this prejudice because the term has been applied to more handicapped people in order to spare them being called something supposedly more offensive?
My mother initially started teaching fellow blind people, but started to be given her current selection due to council pressure. They're difficult and hard work, and most of the volunteers have given up teaching even blind people as a consequence. The pupils range from unable to drool without help to having the mental age (supposedly) of 12 in a 36-year-old body.
I haven't seen any ADD cases, but I wonder if that can really count as a difficulty or disability. Could these people just have characters that are unwilling to sit and learn?
Learning difficulties frequently does mean ignorant, simply from not learning things.

No, ADD is certainly a disability; it is a specific problem with the brain that can manifest itself in various ways, and which is apparently genetically based, not just a label that is applied to certain symptoms. Although, as with all mental and psychiatric disorders, people have a tendency to misapply the term to the symptoms rather than the underlying cause.