Title : "Quidditch has the same problem Rowling has, which is that the arbitrary combinations of sounds and syllables that we call words only mean something in relation to the world they describe..."
link : "Quidditch has the same problem Rowling has, which is that the arbitrary combinations of sounds and syllables that we call words only mean something in relation to the world they describe..."
"Quidditch has the same problem Rowling has, which is that the arbitrary combinations of sounds and syllables that we call words only mean something in relation to the world they describe..."
"... and more than that, the way they’re understood. You can tweak a reference all you like, but the referent will stay just the same. The author herself should know this better than anyone; after all, she claims the name 'quidditch' doesn’t come from any etymological root but was the result of pouring random nonsense sounds starting with the letter Q into five empty pages of a notebook. The leaders of the quidditch leagues can make a statement by disavowing J.K. Rowling, but they can’t make quidditch stop being, well, quidditch. Perhaps they will accidentally teach her the same lesson: that refusing to acknowledge transgender people for who they are will not magick them into something else, either."Writes Molly Roberts in "Opinion: Quidditch’s new name might teach J.K. Rowling a surprising lesson" (WaPo).
The boldfaced sentence is the last line of the column, and it's awfully hard to understand. Or it's very easy to read as the complete opposite of what Roberts is — I think — trying to say. Roberts seems to be making a strong — and questionable assertion — that the words we use to refer to things or to people don't change what they are. But many — most? — transgender people seem to care deeply about the words used to refer to them. And I find it hard to believe that the sport of quidditch would have become anything at all if people weren't calling it quidditch.
But the worst thing about that last sentence is that Roberts is accusing Rowling of trying to change transgender people into non-transgender people, but she has not done that! How can Roberts be so ill-informed?! Rowling has expressed support for transgender people but has worried that some of the people who identify as transgender are making a mistake — going along with a social trend and misidentifying the reasons why they feel troubled by puberty.
ADDED: Let me be more explicit about why I said it's very easy to read what Roberts wrote as the complete opposite of what she intended. If "refusing to acknowledge transgender people for who they are will not magick them into something else," then we may rightly ask who are they? It wouldn't be enough to say they are transgender because they say they are transgender. "Transgender" is just a word, and whether we use it or not, people are whatever they actually are. But I would expect Roberts to respond to my challenge by insisting that any person's invocation of the word makes the phenomenon true — and you're a hateful transphobe if you even entertain the notion that this person is mistaken.
Thus articles "Quidditch has the same problem Rowling has, which is that the arbitrary combinations of sounds and syllables that we call words only mean something in relation to the world they describe..."
that is all articles "Quidditch has the same problem Rowling has, which is that the arbitrary combinations of sounds and syllables that we call words only mean something in relation to the world they describe..." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article "Quidditch has the same problem Rowling has, which is that the arbitrary combinations of sounds and syllables that we call words only mean something in relation to the world they describe..." with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2021/12/quidditch-has-same-problem-rowling-has.html
0 Response to ""Quidditch has the same problem Rowling has, which is that the arbitrary combinations of sounds and syllables that we call words only mean something in relation to the world they describe...""
Post a Comment