Article content continued

Why hide behind an indirect, euphemistic, invented categorization?

It’s a strange thing about identity progressivism: If the cause is so just, the need so compelling and the case for it so clear, why is the language so mealy-mouthed? If you don’t want a white person for your dean of students, and you think that’s a perfectly reasonable position to take, indeed the only reasonable position to take, why not just say “This job is only open to people who are not white”? Why hide behind an indirect, euphemistic, invented categorization?

While we’re on the subject of imprecise language, the pervasive use of the term “inappropriate” in the #MeToo movement’s discussion of sexual misconduct also strikes me as, well, inappropriate. “Inappropriate” is so delicate, like what Emily Post would have said if you chose the wrong spoon for your lobster bisque. Much of the behaviour being discussed is far beyond “inappropriate.” It’s disgusting, repellent, sleazy, lecherous, predatory, not to mention, in many cases, illegal. On the other hand, some of the other behaviour being described seems merely annoying, irritating, bothersome, in poor taste, and so on. When someone is accused of “inappropriate behaviour” how are we to know if he is an actual rapist or merely a teller of off-colour jokes in mixed company? I say “merely” to suggest, not that telling off-colour jokes in mixed or indeed any company is something one should do, but that, despite the forced metaphors of gender ideologues, doing so is not comparable to actual rape.