Gender and the co-opting of language

You know, I was sitting thinking about the 87 “gender” thing, and the “I F*cking Love Science™” crowd.

It hit me that once again, a word is being co-opted by the sophists.  A word that means one thing, and they pretend it means another — simultaneously coasting on the actual meaning … social reputation … of the word and denying that very meaning.

You know, I could grant them the word “sexuality”.  Maybe there are eleventy jillion “sexualities”.  The vast majority of them a result of nurture (or lack thereof) rather than nature.

But there are only two genders, scientifically, in nature.  Oh, sure, sometimes nature screws up and produces a person here or there who has some physical attributes of both genders.  And that’s certainly no reflection on those people any more than being born deaf or blind or with three arms is.  It is not “normal”.  It is what it is.  A good term would be “neither, but we’ll try to fit you in as best we can.”

But hijacking the word “gender” (which is, in fact, a scientific term) to essentially mean “sexual preference(s)” or “self-identification” is intentionally dishonest.  Pretending you’re still talking about science while using this word is a special kind of stupid dishonesty.

The progressives did the same thing with “liberal”, and myriad other words.

We shouldn’t let them get away with it.  Causes all sorts of problems.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by philmon. Bookmark the permalink.

About philmon

Part mountain junkie, part decent amateur photographer, part survivalist, part not-so-decent amateur musician, part sysadmin. Husband, step-dad, grandpa, and music freak who digs mechanical clocks, barometers, and Gil Elvgren pinups. Studied Meteorolgy & Computer Science. And the U.S. Constitution.

5 thoughts on “Gender and the co-opting of language

  1. “The progressives did the same thing with “liberal”, and myriad other words.”

    The progressives did the same thing with “progressive”. Don’t use this to refer to libtards. It feeds their ego. “Hey, who can be against progress?” they ask as they are about to be beheaded by an Islamic refugee. The left never defines their goal and uses the word “progressive” to mean change agent, never saying what they want to change things into.

    • Progress toward what? We’re supposed to think that it automatically means a better future; historically, the future for lots of people has been anything but rosy.

  2. Like I’ve said before, you are making progress after you walk off a cliff. Very rapid progress. At least until you hit the ground.

  3. Here’s a thought I had the other day: I think this all started when they pushed “gender neutral” words. We couldn’t use fireman or postman. We had to use those incredibly convoluted substitutes. seems like a natural progression from that to the idea that male and female are too limiting.

  4. Being a dick, I always use the words that they’ve changed to annoy them and try to shock people into returning to normal.
    I use Global Warming all the time, and it tweaks the freaks. I say Mailman, and then ask if I should say “person-person” instead.
    I say things like “Bruce Jenner” on the few occasions I have to discuss him.
    Don’t let them change the language. Change it back, one conversation at a time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *