Transgender does not exist

Link"Pronoun, Sex Gender pronouns makes sex an issue"creates a dichotomy between man and women justifies masculine dominance Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 10 (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Feminist Philosophy of Language" http://plato.stanford.edu.... MR.) Sex-marking English, like most " but not all " languages, requires a great deal of what Marilyn Frye calls "sex marking" (Frye 1983). For example, one cannot use pronouns to refer to a particular individual without knowing their sex. Frye notes the absurdity of this. If I am writing a book review, the use of personal pronouns to refer to the author creates the need to know whether that person's reproductive cells are the sort which produce ova or the sort which produce sperm. (Frye 1983: 22) Singular personal pronoun usage is impossible without knowing the sex of the person one is discussing, and in many cases sex would otherwise be utterly irrelevant. Frye takes this to be an instance of a general tendency to make sex relevant where it need not be, which she takes to be a key feature of sexism. In addition, she suggests, the constant need to know and indicate sex helps to perpetuate the conviction that sex is a tremendously important matter in all areas. For Frye, this is a key factor in perpetuating male dominance: male dominance requires the belief that men and women are importantly different from each other, so anything that contributes to the impression that sex differences are important is therefore a contributor to male dominance. Impact--Inequality Sexist language is the root cause of patriarchy"leads to male supremacy and loss of women"s agency. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 10 (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Feminist Philosophy of Language" http://plato.stanford.edu.... MR.) 1Sme feminists (e.g. Penelope 1990; Spender 1985) argue that English is, in some quite general sense, male. (Corresponding arguments are also put forward about other languages.) One thing that is meant by this is that English can be said to be male in a manner similar to that in which particular terms can be said to be male " by encoding a male worldview, by helping to subordinate women or to render them invisible, or by taking males as the norm. One sort of argument for this begins from the examination of large quantities of specific terms, and the identification of patterns of male bias, and proceeds from this to the conclusion that the male bias of English is so widespread that it is a mistake to locate the problem in a collection of words, rather than in the language as a whole. The first stage of this sort of argument is, obviously, a lengthy and complex one. The sorts of claims (in addition to those we have already seen) cited include (a) that there are more words for males than for females in English, and that more of these words are positive (Spender 1985: 15, citing Stanley 1977); (b) that a "word for women assume[s] negative connotations even where it designated the same state or condition as it did for men" (Spender 1985: 17), as with "spinster" and "bachelor"; (c) that words for women are far more frequently sexualized than words for men, and that this holds true even for neutral words, when they are applied to women. Dale Spender, citing Lakoff (1975), discusses the example of "professional", comparing "he's a professional" and "she's a professional", and noting that the latter is far more likely than the former to be taken to mean that the person in question is a prostitute. The sexualisation of words for women is considered especially significant by the many feminists who take sexual objectification to be a crucial element, if not the root, of inequalities between women and men. (For more on such examples, see also Baker 1992.) This widespread encoding of male bias in language is, according to theorists like Spender, just what we should expect. Males (though not, as she notes, all of them) have had far more power in society, and this, she claims has included the power to enforce, through language, their view of the world. Moreover, she argues, this has served to enhance their power. There is sexism in language, it does enhance the position of males, and males have had control over the production of cultural forms. (Spender 1985: 144) This, Spender claims, provides circumstantial evidence that "males have encoded sexism into language to consolidate their claims of male supremacy" (Spender 1985: 144). Spender takes the evidence for this claim to be far more than circumstantial, however, and to support it she discusses the efforts of prescriptive grammarians. These include, for example, the claim that males should be listed before females because "the male gender was the worthier gender" (Spender 1985: 147, emphasis hers), and the efforts (noted earlier) to establish "he" as the gender-neutral third-person English pronoun. According to theorists like Spender, men's ability to control language gives them great power indeed. We have already seen ways in which what one might call the maleness of language contributes to the invisibility of women (with respect to words like "he" and "man"). If one takes the maleness of language to go beyond a few specific terms, one will take language's power to make women invisible to be even stronger. We have also seen ways that what might be called maleness can make it more difficult for women to express themselves. Where we lack words for important female experiences, like sexual harassment, women will find it more difficult to describe key elements of their existence. Similarly, where the words we have " like "foreplay" " systematically distort women's experiences, women will have a difficult time accurately conveying the realities of their lives. If one takes such problems to go beyond selected particular terms, and to infect language as a whole, it is natural to suppose that women are to a large degree silenced " unable to accurately articulate key elements of their lives, and unable to communicate important aspects of their thoughts Alternative Any word that depicts women as sex objects or social norms not applicable to men leads to the exclusion of women. We must challenge our discourse in this round and change the meaning of words to solve patriarchy and chauvinism. Goueffic 96 (Goueffic, Louise. Author, BA graduate studies in France. Breaking the patriarchal code. Pg. 13-14 : 1996. MR.) Couched within words are presuppositions about gender, that is many taken-for-granted assumptions about women/men, girls/boys, gender relations, roles and expectations. The identification of sexist wordings is a good start towards raising awareness about how differences in the meanings of words 'reflect differences in the traditional roles accorded to women and men in our society' (Graddol and Swann, 1989: 113). Newspapers, for example, are full of examples of wordings which are used to portray women in negative or limiting ways, i.e. wordings which: depict women as sex objects and on the basis of their appearance rather than their intellect or capabilities (e.g. 'a blonde'); define women in terms of home, family, and domestic roles (e.g. 'mother of three'), in ways that are seldom used for men; trivialize women (e.g. using 'girl' for a much wider age range than 'boy' would be used; also 'weathergirl'); judge women (e.g. 'Iadette", 'career woman'). Consider the following examples from the sports section of the British broadsheet newspaper The Sunday Times. The extracts are from two pieces about tennis, which are written by the same writer, and appear on the same page of the paper. Examples include the use of the words 'persons', 'people', 'Ms", 'they' and 'them' (e.g. 'Each speaker will have one hour for their presentation'), and opting for 'chair' rather that 'chairman', 'flight attendant' rather than 'airhostess', 'doctor' rather than 'woman doctor', etc.