On “Correct Pronouns,” Part I: Roxane Gay

It tells you pretty much all you need to know about the biases of the New York Times that its workplace ethics column, “Work Friend,” is authored by race-obsessed, radical, and combative gay feminist Roxane Gay. No biases there! She has also been described here as a prolific writer of prose and fiction and a visiting professor at Yale, and that’s all accurate too. However, her biases increasingly poison her advice as thoroughly as they poison her opinion columns.

Her last two of those for the Times were a laborious spin job to make Will Smith’s attack on Chris Rock at the Oscars somehow virtuous (“a rare moment when a Black woman was publicly defended”) and a standard issue rant against the likely Supreme Court ruling striking down Roe.

Ugh. I have to pause a bit here because I have concluded that Gay is too often intellectually and rhetorically dishonest because of her ideological mission, and people like that shouldn’t have regular platforms (or advice columns) in the New York Times. Here is a representative line from that second essay: “[W]e should not live in a world where someone who is raped is forced to carry a pregnancy to term because a minority of Americans believe the unborn are more important than the people who give birth to them.”

ONE: The Roe reversal, if it occurs, has nothing, zip, nada, to do what a “minority of people believe.” The decision will be based on the Constitution and the law. The draft suggests no opinion on “the importance” of the unborn on the part of the Justices either.

TWO: Nobody knows what the public’s informed opinion about the unborn is, because most of the public doesn’t have an informed opinion, just a snap emotional judgment based on ignorance, bad information and outbursts like Gay’s. Thus the belief that Gay blames a the unannounced Supreme Court opinion on isn’t a legitimate belief at all, even if a poll could discern it accurately (and polls can’t) and her characterization of it was fair, which it isn’t.

THREE: Are the mothers of the children of rape killed because the fetus isn’t? No? Then Gay’s statement is a lie. Those who believe that unborn children should not be legally killed do not believe that the unborn are more important than the “people who give birth to them.” They take the position that they are human lives and therefore are equally important.

FOUR: We live in the world that exists. “We shouldn’t live in a world where…” is inexcusable laziness: Gay is protesting that rape exists, that the act creates a human life, U.S. laws must deal with human lives according to the Constitution, and society has to find ethical ways to balance the interests involved. Thus does Gay default to what has become progressive magical thinking: because reality is inconvenient to an ideological agenda, POOF! It doesn’t exist, or “shouldn’t.” Facts Don’t Matter.

FIVE: “People who give birth.” True to her creed, Gay won’t acknowledge that women give birth, because trans fanatics will get mad at her. Being loyal to her fellow travelers is more important than communicating clearly, which is what a Time columnist is obligated to do.

That’s a lot of dishonesty and deliberate misrepresentation in one sentence, don’t you think? But that’s Roxane Gay.

I felt I had to get Gay out of the way and my craw before discussing the topic that arose in “Work Friend” without further distractions. I’ll look at the ethics of the pronoun issue in Part 2. First I have to calm down and drink three cups of coffee.

[One more note: I am going to tag this with both “Roxane Gay,” which is the correct spelling of her name, and “Roxanne Gay,” which is how I have repeatedly tagged her in the past. This is for my benefit as well as that of readers, so they can use the tags to track down EA pieces involving her. People who maintain deliberately eccentric spellings of common names cause unnecessary stress and inconvenience to people like me, and some day I may get around to writing about the ethics of it.

4 thoughts on “On “Correct Pronouns,” Part I: Roxane Gay

  1. A majority of Americans were against gay marriage, in fact 31 states voted against it before courts started pushing it through. I wonder what she had to say about that then? Actually I’m sure it was something along the lines of ignorant majorities mean nothing, that Hitler was voted in by the majority, and certain rights, like the right to marry, shouldn’t be up to a vote. In the meantime Juan Williams is bending over backwards to say that GOP majorities in the Senate tend to be made up of senators who come from states that respresent a minority of the population and that the GOP only won the popular vote once in the three times it has won the presidency so far this century.,so (gasp) the majority of the SCOTUS is composed of justices nominated by presidents who didn’t win the popular vote and confirmed by a senate majority that didn’t represent 50% or more of the population. That’s actually not true – GWB made both of his nominations to the SCOTUS in his second term, when in fact he did win the popular vote. Is it just me, or is the left OBSESSED with minority rights when they are in the minority, and IN DENIAL of minority rights when they are in the majority? Somehow it’s all about the majority now, but if they were not in the majority, they’d be saying democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Majority rule is a great thing – only when your side is in the majority.

    • Obviously, the Constitution is set up to prevent evil majorities from enforcing their evil opinions on everyone else, but it’s also set up to allow good majorities to enforce their good opinions on everyone else. Also, the Senate should be representative of the population if the population is a majority Democrat (hmmm, representative is an interesting word to use in regards to the Senate…) and the President should be directly elected by the population if they’re majority Democrat but we should figure that out after all the votes are counted. Also, gerrymandering only exists if it helps Republicans.

      Do you even progressive, Steve?

  2. Roxane Gay wrote:

    “[W]e should not live in a world where someone who is raped is forced to carry a pregnancy to term because a minority of Americans believe the unborn are more important than the people who give birth to them.”

    Wow, this is logically invalid to a staggering degree. Of course, I have become used to that from the Left. These days, appeals to emotion and their own sense of superiority seem to be the only tools that they turn to, even when they might make a convincing logical argument.

    For example, she could’ve argued that for constitutional purposes, a child isn’t a citizen until birth, and that there is no reasonable encumbrance to terminating a pregnancy on that basis. Of course, that argument is rife with opportunities for rebuttal, but so is the one she made, and that one is specious from front to back.

    A rational argument can be made that women suffering pregnancies from actual rape deserve a say in continuing their pregnancy, and I’d be sympathetic to that argument if she worked to discover that pregnancy very early — I don’t quite buy the position that a just-conceived child is the same as one later in development when it comes to defining “human being” in anything other than the pure biological sense. Reasonable people can disagree about that, and I’d at least entertain that argument (speaking only for myself).

    But the reality is, the Left has no real ability to defend their current position with logic and reason, and for a fact, they have given up trying. They know it’s impossible to rationally defend killing a child about to be born as if it were the same as one a few weeks after conception, so they assure us of their inherent rightness by making “right side of history” and “I can’t imagine world in which” arguments as if they are actually worthy of serious debate. In this way, the Democrats have gone from the party of “safe, legal, and rare” to the party of straight-up, no-debate-possible infanticide.

    That’s a long, tragic way to come in a couple of decades.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.