Dead Wild Roses

This is how the activist Left abuses polysemy.  Polysemy is defined as follows:

So, this is their game.  To make their radical propositions seem reasonable they purposefully use words that have a generally accepted meaning, but then at the same time a special transformative meaning for them.  The woke activist left does this so they can move the political/social football in a radical direction all the while sounding like they are saying normal, reasonable things.

Let’s take an easy obvious example, let’s look at the word “inclusion”.

“Inclusion” in this case is doing a great deal of work under the hood.  The argument from the activists is this – we should include all types of women in female sports that includes “cis-women”¹ and of course “trans – women”.

The mechanism at work here is “inclusion” means accepting the notion that there are more that one type of females in society that play sports.  This is the truth married to a lie in action – the woke argument for inclusion inserts the notion that males who call themselves women are actually women and thus in ‘woke reality’ we should include deluded males in the female category.

This is how they wedge their bullshit into society because when confronted by people who comport with reality woke activists can then smear and attack their reality abiding opponents for not being “inclusive”.  To low information people seeing the argument taking place they see one side coming out for inclusion and one side being against inclusion (the bigots, the transphobes, insert your preferred vehicle of social coercion…) – but the definition of inclusion the low information people have in their heads is not the same as the one the activists are implicitly following.

So the low information people working on the non activist definition of inclusion are bamboozled into going along with the activists (and the poison pill contained within) thinking that they are supporting a just, more inclusive society.

Obviously, the exact opposite is true.  By including men in female sports female athletes are excluded from participating, winning medals, and getting funding to further their excellence in their own category.

This is dichotomy of terms (dialectical even) is not a mistake, because if they led with a clear unambiguous statement of their inane version of ‘inclusion (including males in the female sport categories)’ they would get zero social traction/support for their society corrosive radical views.

   ¹ – Just a sidebar this is why it is advisable to never accept the term “cis” in your affairs and society.  “Cis” erases the authentic definition of what a woman is.  Women are exclusively adult human females, full stop.  Including males who think they are women in the category blurs and invalidates the category and destroys the ability for people to make reasonable category discernment in social situations.