| |
Jen Gunter wrote a book that is to appear soon, "The Vagina Bible". She was [interviewed by Vox](https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/8/7/20694794/vagina-bible-jen-gunter-ob-gyn-feminist). I'm all in favor of women and girls knowing correct information about their bodies, including their private parts. I'm in favor of them making their own decisions about them and everything pertaining to them. I'm in favor of eliminating all shame or stigma associated with those organs and their functioning.
But what struck me in the interview was Gunter's distress that lots of people don't even know the correct definition of "vagina", thinking it includes the external genitalia such as the labia. I myself would prefer people use the correct definitions, but have reluctantly concluded that despite the terminology doctors and scientists might prefer, language usage has evolved and "vagina" is now in fact an ambiguous word — it has two meanings. One is the medically correct one specifying an internal organ, and the other a more general one including external genitalia. The world has changed and the purists have lost.
There is a linguistically parallel case of great interest to me, which is the word "pedophile". Scientists will tell you it refers to a state of mind — attraction to prepubescent children. But in fact, by the repeated usage of non-scientists it has come to have another meaning, which is a sex offender against people who are under the age of consent. Among true pedophiles, some offend sexually against children but a great many never do. This second definition is extremely harmful to the latter group.
To pick a roughly parallel case, it's as if "immigrant" had acquired a second definition which was "felon". Although Trump and allies have tried to link the two, I think and hope that no one literally thinks they have the same meaning, and you can see why it would be terrible for immigrants if such a usage were to be accepted. The vast majority of immigrants are not felons any more than the vast majority of native-born people are.
Many people may not even know of the scientific definition of "vagina", and if they find out, they likely will not care. Perhaps there is some argument to be made as to why this more general definition is harmful to women in some practical way, but I haven't heard of it.
Similarly, many people may not know the scientific definition of "pedophile" or care, but in contrast this lack of knowledge harms non-offending pedophiles constantly. It's very hard to fight patterns of thought that are intertwined with the meanings of words. The attempt of the names "Virtuous Pedophiles" (of which I am co-founder) and "Celibate Pedophiles" (the name of this blog) is to deny the more general meaning with the use of an adjective and force people to consider the narrower definition.
I wish pedophiles had the standing in society to call everyone out on this extra definition of "pedophile" that hurts us so much. I am envious of the sympathy Gunter will receive from feminists and their allies for her attempt to correct usage of the word "vagina", even though it does not (to my knowledge) harm women or girls per se.
As footnotes to my main point:
While it is true that in some cases, molestation of prepubescent girls will involve touching of the vulva or penetration of the vagina (much less common), that possible connection has nothing to do with my post. Would that no child was ever molested again, regardless of what organs might be involved. For crimes such as indecent exposure, no organs are involved but eyes and brain.
Another serious problem with the broader definition of "pedophile" pertains to the crimes involving victims who are well into puberty or beyond — which numerically dwarf those involving prepubescents. Everyone recognizes that true pedophilia is at the very least a statistically very unusual condition — strong sexual attraction to prepubescent children. There are reasonable arguments for considering it a mental illness or disorder. In contrast, a sexual attraction to girls who are well into puberty or beyond is completely normal in heterosexual men. All that is involved in those sex offenses is about action: committing a crime. The underlying attraction is in no way, shape or form a mental illness or disorder. But that word "pedophile" has the "mental illness" connotation from its original meaning, and it infects thought about those who commit sex crimes against underage teenagers and muddles the issues. It implies that they have a mental illness that is not present in the parallel crime of rape of adult women. And then in turn there are men who would never attempt anything sexual with underage girls but are aware that they feel an attraction to them. Some of them feel deeply ashamed of those attractions, and many such men have written to Virtuous Pedophile to say as much. This is collateral damage of using "pedophile" to refer to those who commit sex crimes against underage teens.
| |
