Welcome to the brutal and tedious world of semantics.
You’ll regularly hear the phrase uttered, “That’s just semantics.” The issue with the phrase is not that it doesn’t have clear and powerful efficacy in situations where it’s relevant, but rather, the nature in which it is leveraged. It has become a misused cliché. It’s what is uttered when you force someone to come to terms with their own inconsistent or illogical presentation of thoughts and arguments.
The unfortunate reality is that when communicating to someone something you believe to have discovered or rationalized within your mind, the only way to do this without leaving parts and portions up to the liberty of the recipient’s interpretation and biases is if you have the ability to articulate what you actually mean in an accurate way. People seem to think, “that’s just semantics”, or, “you’re just playing word games”, is some form of an intellectual “trump-card” reducing an opposing opinion to a simple misunderstanding of your point as opposed to taking credit that maybe your explanation is incomplete, misleading, or inaccurate. Both are more than clearly possible, but ownership of the idea is the responsibility of the one communicating the thought.
So this brings us to the beautiful topic of this piece: consistency.
You may think when reading the word “consistency”, with its glorious html tag assigning it prominent boldness and calling the topic “beautiful”, that I am being flippant or just trying to add color to the language…But I mean it. Consistency is, arguably, the most beautiful intellectual concept that is attainable. It is a sort of “Zen”. A perfect balance where all things believed, thought, and considered are in a state of harmony where your emotions, thoughts, words, and actions are all in perfect, or theoretically perfect, unison. The things you believe and think are clearly exercised within your words and actions, and when challenged with argumentation and opposition, you are deeply considered and harmonized in your approach so that inconsistency and contradictions don’t plague you wherever you go.
I think this is beyond a lost virtue. We have begun to venture into the truly absurd as a world-wide culture of inconsistency spreads like wildfire. To be fair, it existed in all of human history, but we referred to these as “apostates”, “hypocrites”, “anathema”. All of those words to indicate those that at one point verbally, actively, or passively intentionally aligned themselves with something in the affirmative only to reject it through action, word, or choice. So we know this isn’t a new phenomenon, but rather what’s new about it is the massive acceptance by the vast majority of voices tolerating direct inconsistency so long as it suits particular agendas.
So, let us start with a concession: If God does not exist, I am truly delusional. As are all other believers in any God or gods. Every single one of us, no matter our convictions are unequivocally the definition of delusional.
I’m willing to concede that. The reason I’m willing to concede that and still have a straight face while discussing things of this nature is because I am beyond diligent in testing my every move, belief, thought, logical option, rational and irrational avenue to the best of my ability towards consistency with what I see around me and how I let those things impact my words, thoughts, actions, and life.
The definition of delusional in the context being used here is: “characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.”
Bearing that definition in mind, let us start with a simple, but comprehensible example of a fact, where it leads with consistency, and the accepted delusion that proceeds from the pits of inconsistency: biological genders.
One of the most ironic pieces of our current culture is that we have truly begun to unravel common sense, and what’s more, we do it with the authority and the “name” of science behind it. It is truly a bizarre phenomena. Here is a cliché, but I don’t get why people feel it is one; it is more than obviously true: science doesn’t say anything, scientists do. What we actually mean when we say “science” is actually “scientists’ interpretations”.
Now, obviously that’s simply an assertion without an argument supported by justification. Let’s keep in mind that my argument and explanation must align with my assertion: “There are only 2 biological genders”, while also maintaining consistency and coherence while explaining reality. If I fail to do that, I have, at best, a theory that clearly fails in its current state. So bearing that in mind, let’s talk a bit about how we should know this is a common sense truth that also clearly bears itself out with deeper scientific discoveries.
We know there are two “symbols”, being the chromosomes that determine gender, annotated as “x” && “y”. But clearly, that alone is not enough to make the case as the defining or limiting conclusive factors that there are only two genders. We know, after having studied the genetic makeup of these pairings, that the mass (absurdly large percentage of all living humans) follow the trend that correctly developed “XX” chromosomes yields a, in this sense, “healthy” female, while “XY” yields a, in this sense, “healthy” male. These are the beyond statistically dominant trends in the observable world. Some of the most common chromosomal gender disorders top out at about 1/500 specifically “male” babies, and dramatically reducing in the 1/17,000, 1/50,000, and 1/100,000 babies per defect.
But let’s take a step back before extrapolating too much on the implications of two predominant combinations being present in something like 99% of all living human beings, and focus on a very critical word being used here: defect.
What is a defect without the acknowledgment of a “standard” or a state of “normalcy”? I feel so often people find the reality that they have an attribute that places them on the “outside” of a given spectrum of “normalcy” as some bigoted, hate-filled end of a maliciously intended degradation of their humanity. Being a statistical outlier has nothing to do with your humanity, but it definitely impacts your life. For example, my brother has Down Syndrome. He is a clear and distinctly recognizable “outlier”, however, despite his 1/700 babies abnormality, he is still more than obviously human. A “defect” implies a state of statistical abnormality that most typically represents itself in such small numbers, traditionally with negative implications regarding things ranging from cognitive ability to reproduction, that it’s clearly not a “positive”.
I think that the “negative” implication is to be self-evident, but from my perspective, they make sense to exist, however, they are not a detractor from the individual’s personhood or their purpose. That being said, even more so if voiced from the “science-driven” Darwinian assumption that the preservation of reproductive ability and survival of the species is of the utmost biological importance, these “defects” are utterly and completely, without an ounce of saving grace, as “bad” of an affliction as nature could impart upon an individual. It, in almost all circumstances, is so detrimental to the individual’s “natural purpose”, their ability to survive and perpetuate their lineage, there’s almost nothing that could be worse to afflict someone with if their only purpose is to procreate and perpetuate their genes.
So, conservatively, let’s say 95% (I believe a massively conservative estimate), of all humans fit neatly into a biologically factual slot of “male” or “female”, from a strictly physiological reality. That implies that 5%, even though it is almost certainly more like less than 0.3%, of humanity is “abnormal” physiologically as it pertains to gender. Any other conclusion is just truly inconsistent or, quite literally, delusional; “idiosyncratic beliefs contradicted by reality or rational argument”. Crying, “but there’s outliers”, isn’t an argument, it’s simply a reality that fits a world where non-ideal variation is possible. It’s not more complicated than that. It’s a clear, obvious, and even expected, consistent reality that takes true delusional assertions to refute.
No doubt, the question becomes, “Why is he bringing this up? Surely he doesn’t want to actually discuss this in this article.” Truly, I don’t care what fake “controversial” position we discuss regarding these types of topics, but I find this to be one of the most egregious, and therefore best examples, for a variety of reasons:
- It is a commonly touted position that is defended by “science” (scientists) that is wildly inconsistent with tangible, statistical, observable, and experimental data
- It is one of the primary points of contention held in modern society
- It is at the near “backbone” of most basic, obvious, and self-evident common sense positions obtainable in the tangible world, yet is still actually “debated” as if it is even mildly viably debatable
- Most importantly, for this discussion, it violates fundamental tenants of the scientific doctrines that are the crux of the authority the scientific community is granted through social contract
So, to hedge the irritating refutations that will inevitably arise if we don’t “name our terms”, let’s get back to semantics. What is “gender”? As I’ve stated, I’m talking about the clear physiological properties that exist: genetic makeup, physical attributes, reproductive properties, etc that make a human being a “biological man” or a “biological woman”. These are non-mental state, non-intellectual, non-debatable properties that exist in the physiological realm of material reality. We are not talking about the abstract social constructs of “masculinity” or “femininity”. Those are absolutely relatively fluid concepts that arise from social standards that drive behaviors and patterns based on social “ideals” of what those individuals should embody given their biological gender identity.
Why does this clarification matter? Well, it’s virtually the only thing that matters if we’re talking about consistency. If something is beyond clearly, consistently, and obviously factual; ie: if 2 biological genders exist, then any perception within a mental state that you don’t belong to the one that factually is “assigned” to you is, by definition, a delusion. So then we hit the question of: “Okay, even if that’s true, what does that have to do with scientific doctrine and consistency?”
So glad you asked that question interlocutor! The reason this matters is the leveraging and usage of the phrase “science”. We often have the phrase “gender is an imaginary construct” or something like “non-binary” being thrown around. I’m not even denying “non-binary” existing, as various combinations of X and Y chromosomal defects undoubtedly exist, but that they are 1 of 2 categories: an absolute delusion (the popular social application of this phrase) or a genetic defect of a minute portion of the population summing to, in our conservative estimates, less than 5% (but really less than 0.3% in likely actuality). So, is it “scientific” to allow a truly, factually existent phrase like “non-binary” to be leveraged and encouraged even when used in a delusional context? Obviously not. Whether the opinions are hijacked by social organizations and groups of people or truly espoused by “science” itself, the reality is the claim is just factually not scientific. It can’t be. But why?
Well, let’s talk a little bit about what science is. Here are the definitions that exist for the word, having slightly different connotations depending on the context, but not having fundamentally different underlying doctrines that drive it. In order for the 2nd definition to adequately be utilized, it, by necessity, must meet certain criteria of the first or else it ceases to be used consistently. Science is:
- the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
- a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject
Do you see the interwoven necessity of the first within the second? Fundamentally, for something to be scientific, it must be a study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. You must study tangible, physical reality in order for something to be scientific, and something can be a “science”, in the term of the 2nd definition, by being a systematic organization of scientifically acquired data regarding a particular subject. So to equate something that defies the tangible, testable, observable reality with a “scientific” claim is inconsistent and inaccurate with its necessary definitional requirements. If your assertion is not applicable back to reality, it is not scientific but rather interpretive and glaringly false, at best, or delusional, at worst.
A really simple test for consistency on this topic is to contrast and compare something like schizophrenia with gender dysphoria, and most specifically, non-genetic/chromosomal defect driven non-binary sensations. A schizophrenic is delusional because they fundamentally believe something about reality that is definitively not matching reality. You don’t tell them that the people or things they’re imagining are real because “science” can study their behavior and actions. Those studies don’t validate or verify the reality of their delusions, manifesting them into the tangible world; they simply study the behavior of a clear and definitive delusional person’s behaviors. This is self-evident because their beliefs and experiences don’t match reality.
So why does “science” believe that these delusional “non-binary” individuals are somehow validated or vindicated from the status of delusion despite it standing in clear opposition of what is definitively observable and testable within the physical world? The only way this could even possibly be true is if you equivocate something ethereal and contradictory, like masculinity or femininity, with its correlated, but fundamentally contrasting, “real” counterpart: biological male and biological female. This is “inconsistent” and, worse, dishonest. You don’t tell a schizophrenic their hallucinations are real because you don’t want to offend them, you recognize they’re living with a potentially and likely harmful delusion that is causing them to live in a non-existent version of reality.
Now, we get into some really contentious stuff. Let’s truly test your consistency. If there are doctrines to science: physical, testable, verifiable, and directly correlated observations of reality, and someone doesn’t meet those criteria, are they a “scientist”? As a fun example, let’s talk about someone like…I don’t know…an intelligent design proponent. You can do a search on several famous ID supporters from Steven Meyer, James Tour, etc. and read how they are “pseudo-scientists” or other fallacious declarations to defame their credentials for having dissenting opinions despite following the tenants of scientific definitions. The issue isn’t with the “science”, it’s with the interpretation of the data the experiments yield. Are intelligent design supporters scientists? Are they “pseudo-scientists” simply because their conclusions based on the data are dissenting from the masses? If so, doesn’t that mean that any scientist that posits anything that doesn’t correlate to demonstrable, physical reality automatically become not a scientist?
The point of this all hasn’t quite become clear, but there is a definitive point to everything going on. It has to do with consistency, obviously, but in regards to double standards that should greatly embarrass anyone that lives them out.
A Christian, by definition, must follow the core tenants of the man Jesus of Nazareth, or they are not a Christian. So many people talk about “Christians” in all sorts of derogatory, intellectually lazy, and logically pathetic ways, but that changes nothing about the reality that not everyone that claims to be something is that something. You must be consistent with the beliefs, rules, doctrines, dogmas, declarations of that something, or you are not that something. Period. It’s the way everything works.
So for example, everyone loves to quote “Christians” beating, hating, condemning, spitting on, harassing, and bashing homosexuals, but if all of those actions are in direct violation of Christian tenants, how can that be assigned to that group in an intellectually honest way? The same way that a “scientist” denying biological genders is “delusional” or inconsistent with their own required doctrines, so is anyone claiming “Christianity” while performing those atrocious acts.
We all need a slap in the face of consistency. We need to stand in the face of common sense, reason, and honesty with integrity and consistency. We’re too quick to condemn without evidence or consistent application. Too quick to leverage authority inaccurately. Too willing to conflate and equivocate to expedite our agendas. We need a massive dose of consistency, honesty, and diligence so we can wake back up to the real world before literal insane people burn everything down. Make no mistake, a minority group denying factual realities based on dictionary definitions of delusion controlling what social acceptance of “truth” is leads to utter disaster. Truth and honesty are necessary for existence. Without them, hell is waiting. A world run by delusions and impossibly inconsistent ideologies that can’t even make single coherent and consistent sentences to save their very lives will lead to hell on earth. Whether it’s scientifically driven delusional and inconsistent people, or religiously driven delusional and inconsistent people; hell is waiting on the side of that path.
Shake the delusion. Become a man or woman of consistency. Test yourself and your beliefs. Test your accusations and perceptions. Be diligent and honest with integrity. Challenge all lies before a world built on their backs becomes the only one left to live in.
