Language of/by certainty

This post is simply ‘one’ of exploration, it will go where it goes!

If there is a certainty then it has to be language developed as a descriptive model – it became or came from speech – as its doubtful it was written and then spoken – as spoken then written as it sounded sounds far more plausible – ‘ur’ was said, and someone thought that sounds like an u and an r = ‘ur’ – well, in truth it probably happened later but the general idea seems correct enough.

So, description or descriptive, but of what? well, that’s fairly easy, look around – what do you see? now described it!

In a world without language what would you do first? I suggest you’d get your hand you use to point and curve all fingers slightly and bend it back to point at yourself and point it three times as a way of saying ‘me’ and then uncurve your fingers and point out from yourself at another and again point three times and say ‘you’ – there you go the rudiments are/have started.

Now, in our World everything other than ourself starts as an ‘it’ – ‘it is’ is a very common phrase – but soon it comes-up with a fact that apart from ‘its’ there is a double gender in the world its one of those certainties – its so certain that many languages like German ‘gender’ things as well as people, but I am English and I see gender in language as simply coming from the descriptive fact that it was taken from the male and female persons and so, we had to describe IT/HE and SHE.

‘It’ is such an ugly word to describe a person and no-one uses ‘it’ as a describer of a person, unless they want to be totally derogatory, that is why ‘it’ doesn’t describe a person be them male or female.

You don’t even hear ‘it is its’ very often – perhaps if a stray-dog you’ve not seen before comes up to you and a friend with a ball in its mouth, and your friend says, I wonder who’s ball it is, you might say ‘it is its’ I suppose – but look at how convoluted that was.

‘It’ is very much used as a ‘stranger’ terminology – it represents the unfamiliar to you ‘its’ an expression of unknowingness and absence amongst other things – a third state to the connected male and female which represents similar but differing states of being – gendered states, if you will.

And as with ‘it’ ‘they’ and ‘them’ are also used as distanteers, showing a lack of familiarity and a distance or absence. We often use ‘them’ as a term of distancing us from them and showing or describing a distance in thought and action – but of course the real divider is simply I and You – nothing else compares in setting and showing a difference between one person and another.

Nothing I have said so far diverts from the model of ‘describing’ what is there to be described, in that it describes what is to be seen – and when it comes to people there is a definite distinction a person was ever a male or a female [never an] ‘it’.

So, now, I once again have to revert-back to a post I made about what should we name ‘noun’ transgender types – ideally they’d all like a special-named gender group all for themselves – an yes I do mean individually – but that ain’t happening, because it can’t be made to work – linguists are refusing to have language mangled in this way – and simple language users are not having it either for many reasons, the main reason being language complexity is always brought-down to simplicity for the ‘use of’ and thus any people trying to insert more difficulty into language get pushed-back and told you cannot insert your personal complexities of what you feel should be your personal experience and in some ways is your experience into a system of language that covers all and not just your own part of experience and life, no, if and when you are or have made yourself into a sub-gender, you must at some point fit that into a larger category so that category can run-up against the main two, but here’s the thing transgender people – the only option for the naming of you is or has to be ‘you being described’ as ‘ITS’, as it is the only category left – because when you are neither fully male or fully female [because you yourself messed-about with the natural ordering of being either male or female] then you have to be an IT or a THEY or a THEM, and the only way out of that is to either fully transition from male to female bodily or female to male bodily so you are termed fully opposite to the other gender you were born as; as any other combination of body parts, MEN WITH TITS AND PENISES makes you a gender ‘it’, and that’s got to be as factually correct equalisation of body parts = gender or a gender, and doesn’t deviate from the he/she/it model of life that’s always been around – sadly for those men with dicks and tits they’ve demoted themselves into the category we traditionally use for ‘other’ than male or female, as its fair to say us humans see MALE AND FEMALE as a position or place to be better than to be an ‘it’ but considering those in that ‘it’ category [if you accept my logic] have already stepped-out of full maleness or femaleness surely they’d not have much of a problem accepting they are an IT/THEY/OR THEM as surely the whole point of transition to something else other than simply male or female was the goal, and so, these people having shaken-off full maleness or femaleness cannot now resort to calling or being called male or female and thus if they want to remain totally genderless or removed from being known and seen as male or female their only option has to be ‘it’ or they or them, that’s why I say we had it right in the 1970’s when we referred to gay people as ‘one of THEM’ as that phrase summed-up the whole other than heterosexual people – THEM doing it their way, it perfectly described the other ‘sex’ act people doing it another way to the considered normality of vaginal sex, but with gays it is or was the sex-act ‘copulation’ being described but with ‘not full’ transitioners its came down to a similar thing but its not the sex-act now that makes a ‘them’ but the crossing of genders that makes a ‘them’ and I’m pretty sure most ‘gays’ are happy being referred to as one of them – as there are many worst slurs going around – but their ‘them’ was due to pure sexuality but put ‘them’ as a tag to any transitioner who is something of a bodily mix of the two defining male or female characteristics and then try to pin a ‘them’ on them for not being either male or female in the whole-sense and they get up in arms that that identity isn’t them and demeans them – I once again state its always been…

… MALE/FEMALE OR IT OR THEM OR THEY…

… and until you get a name for yourself other than ‘it’ to cover over the nastiness of being known as an it or they or them then that’s what you’ll remain in the informal – although in the formal you’ll always have to be referred to as ‘them’ as that change from being a third category IT will never change as it will always or you will always be categorised as an it because there is a male or female – so wipe away your tears as being described as an it or they/them, as I am trying to do you lot a favour and give you a kick-up the arse and say get ‘naming’ yourself something other than an it [if you can] as if you don’t than formally that’s what you’ll remain but informally you can be known as something else or other than an it – and really its nouns before pronouns or he before being called a him or she before her – that’s just language but for you lot its it before them but maybe a bright spark will invent a fourth category? But I doubt it as our language has one unique principle that being

IF YOU AREN’T ONE OR THE OTHER YOU MUST BE KNOWN AS THE RATHER INDISTINCT OTHER OR IT.

I finish with this for all the ‘winers/moaners about being not called by your preferred pronouns – one – don’t be so hard on people who speak as they find and go on appearance in saying he or she is or are to a person they’ve probably never met before and are just going on looks to describe a person – we often go by facial looks more than by bodily parts so its hardly surprising a male facial looking person with breasts is referred to and called he or him in public discourses – the world has grown-up to describe and speak on what is seen and as a man with tits is the anomaly its safer to say man hence he or she than to assume wrongly a body with tits is what should be used as a descripter of whether to call a person a he or she, it’s a good rememberance to know that it’s the transgender or transitions that have broken into the male/female/it world and thus with us not being mind-readers we can’t always make the right judgement call – ITS THOSE BLIMMIN BREASTS AGAIN, THEY ALWAYS CONFUSE ME – is a future call – but that stubble always makes me think twice of what call to make.

I don’t go out to restaurants much and thought hey, I’d always just use the ‘you’ with every person of a rather unknown gender-identity, until I realised that in restaurants its seen far more disgraceful to say to every ‘eater and drinker’ what would YOU like? And dispense with the sir or madam, as formality matters when there is no familiarity in most cases between the serving and served folks, so you try it and you’ll see its that FORMAL/INFORMAL which has more power over where to place supposed gender-types in the outside world than it is when the familiarity wanted by the ‘thems and its’ comes into play – and as somebody once quite correctly said PRONOUNS ARE WHAT IS GIVEN UNTO YOU BY ANOTHER, and not what you want to be described as yourself – and full circle we come back to people either being mind-readers or speaking as they see and thus describing, and the only part mind-reading I know is – thinking how possibly a piece of writing or speaking may go down with a wider-audience – and how do I expect these words to be taken by some body or other?

AGAIN, I REALLY DON’T GIVE A FUCK – I AM NOT EVEN GOING TO OPEN MYSELF UP BY WONDERING WHAT OTHERS MAY THINK OF THESE WORDS – NO, I DON’T WANT TO MIND-READ YOUR SENSIBILITIES – I’VE A GOOD IDEA WHAT YOU’LL BE SAYING, AND GENERALLY ALL I SEE IS BIGOTED AND LAUGHABLE VIEWS AND OPINIONS WITH NO REAL TALENT FOR GETTING AT THE CORE OF AN ISSUE, SO, YOU RESORT TO PISS-TAKING AND MOCKERY, NOTHING I HAVE SEEN SO FAR DISUADES ME FROM THINKING THIS ABOUT THE MAJORITY OF COMMENTATORS WHO COMMENTATE ON ANOTHERS WORK.

SLUR – SLURRY – SLURRIED that’s all the progression I see from people, whereas I’d really like to see a LEAP – LEAPED – LEAP from people, but know most people would have to revert-back to zero before they could go forward off their own bat. Note: I was going to call this post ‘language off of certainties’ but thought that might confuse, but I leave this here – but I do wonder if the ITS will escape its its-ness, I doubt it. But you never know!