Thread by @paulbullen

Since people misunderstood what I was saying in the recent controversy, I have written it down in plain English. Comments are welcomed. I will paste the short account below. docs.google.com/document/d/1kR…

Shorter account, in a series of tweets:
1. English has a number of words that speakers use sometimes in a broad, genus way and sometimes in a narrow, species way. The context allows listeners to know which sense is intended. An example is the word vagina. People usually use that

2] word to refer to a general area of the female body, but sometimes to refer a specific area within that area. The existence of a technical, species use does not make the common genus use incorrect. In this case, the genus sense plays a useful function that cannot be filled by

3] any other non-slang word. The generic sense of the word vagina is not synonymous with the word vulva, for example. The referent of the generic sense of the word vagina includes the vagina in the specific sense, while the referent of the word vulva does not. So do not let

4] science people and activists intimidate you into thinking that their preferred, technical word use should replace your natural, ordinary language use unless they can provide convincing reasons.

The use of the word vulva where you would have normally use the word vagina is

5] jarring to most people, in part because vulva is a technical word that is rarely used. But if you are the sort of person who leaps at the opportunity to switch from saying slave to saying enslaved person, from saying disabled person to saying person with a disability, from

6] saying fishermen to saying fisherfolk, you will no doubt be happy to draw attention to yourself by saying vulva where people would expect vagina. There’s certainly no law against it. But it is not correct, if by correct we mean consistent with prevailing existing usage and

7] expectations. The correct word, in that sense, is vagina. And the word is correct in one other sense: I think standard usage should be kept. It is only this second position that should be controversial—for some people. The first position should be seen as trivially true.

Should be "where you would normally have used" (not use). I failed to type the 'd'.

"Science people" was a place holder. I didn't quite mean scientists, but people who are strongly influenced by science. I will clarify that in the main document (at the link). I've already made corrections there. I would delete these outdated tweets, but for people's comments.