There's an increasing push to separate language from biological sex

The spoken word goes to the heart of who and what human beings are.  For Jews and Christians alike, God created the universe and humans through language.  ("And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.")  John, speaking of Jesus, says, "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us[.]"

Language also defines culture.  People living close to the Arctic circle have hundreds of words for snow.  The French language likes to describe human relationships (e.g., ménage à troistête-à-têtemaîtresse-en-titre), while Yiddish has a vocabulary addressing the human condition (e.g., macherchutzpahklutzmenschschlemiel).

Just as cultures create words, control over words can affect culture.  George Orwell, writing in 1984, understood that the essence of government power was its ability to control language and, therefore, control thought:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.

With the transgender movement, the left is experimenting (rather successfully) with using linguistic changes to control thinking.  We are told that people can choose their own pronouns, something that is symbolic of their choosing their own sex.  In England, if we fail to use those self-selected pronouns, we can be fired.  In America, we can be harassed and squeezed out of jobs.  In Canada, "misgendering" is a human rights violation.

The left reveals the lie behind "misgendering" when it fails to describe all people as either "men" or "women."  Having to add the adjective "transgender" in front of the word "man" or "woman" (i.e., "transgender man") is an admission that the so-called identification is a psychological fake-out.  Nothing's changed at the biological level.

To support this "transgender" fraud, there's an ongoing, and utterly baseless, attempt to separate biology from sex.  Worse, that fraud has entered the scientific realm, which is no longer acting scientific.  (Here and here are fairly comprehensive discussions about the scientific baselessness of transgenderism, so I won't squeeze those ideas into this post.)

Last month, [M]otherboard, a website dedicated to promoting alternative approaches to childbirth, decided to help things along by creating a chart with "Suggested (Inclusive) sexual health language."  The chart "suggests" that there are no longer such things as women; there are, instead, "persons who menstruate."  Men are excised from society and language to become, merely, "persons who produce sperm."

And pregnancy, a biological function unique to women, is no longer a women's purview.  Instead, we have "pregnant persons," followed by "chest-feeding" rather than "breastfeeding."

The above is disturbing, but at least it comes from a site that seems less scientifically oriented than say, actual physicians.  Australia, though, is beginning to cross that line:

Doctors are pushing for an end to centuries-old anatomical terms named after "old men, kings and gods" claiming they are no longer relevant and represent the biases of much older generations.

And some have moved to teaching the next generation of medics to phase out the irrelevant, confusing and often misogynistic medical parlance and instead use more practical and descriptive terms for body parts in daily practice.

[snip]

"I think we have a personal choice to decolonise our language and these historical terms will fade out. Of course I make sure the students know the eponyms for exam purposes," Dr Small said.

Australia's push to "decolonize" medical language is minor compared to the nonsense from [M]otherboard, but it is part of a nascent movement to push us down the conveyor belt toward a world that forces people to believe, as Winston Smith was forced in 1984, that 2+2=5.

Image: Wikipedia.

The spoken word goes to the heart of who and what human beings are.  For Jews and Christians alike, God created the universe and humans through language.  ("And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.")  John, speaking of Jesus, says, "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us[.]"

Language also defines culture.  People living close to the Arctic circle have hundreds of words for snow.  The French language likes to describe human relationships (e.g., ménage à troistête-à-têtemaîtresse-en-titre), while Yiddish has a vocabulary addressing the human condition (e.g., macherchutzpahklutzmenschschlemiel).

Just as cultures create words, control over words can affect culture.  George Orwell, writing in 1984, understood that the essence of government power was its ability to control language and, therefore, control thought:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.

With the transgender movement, the left is experimenting (rather successfully) with using linguistic changes to control thinking.  We are told that people can choose their own pronouns, something that is symbolic of their choosing their own sex.  In England, if we fail to use those self-selected pronouns, we can be fired.  In America, we can be harassed and squeezed out of jobs.  In Canada, "misgendering" is a human rights violation.

The left reveals the lie behind "misgendering" when it fails to describe all people as either "men" or "women."  Having to add the adjective "transgender" in front of the word "man" or "woman" (i.e., "transgender man") is an admission that the so-called identification is a psychological fake-out.  Nothing's changed at the biological level.

To support this "transgender" fraud, there's an ongoing, and utterly baseless, attempt to separate biology from sex.  Worse, that fraud has entered the scientific realm, which is no longer acting scientific.  (Here and here are fairly comprehensive discussions about the scientific baselessness of transgenderism, so I won't squeeze those ideas into this post.)

Last month, [M]otherboard, a website dedicated to promoting alternative approaches to childbirth, decided to help things along by creating a chart with "Suggested (Inclusive) sexual health language."  The chart "suggests" that there are no longer such things as women; there are, instead, "persons who menstruate."  Men are excised from society and language to become, merely, "persons who produce sperm."

And pregnancy, a biological function unique to women, is no longer a women's purview.  Instead, we have "pregnant persons," followed by "chest-feeding" rather than "breastfeeding."

The above is disturbing, but at least it comes from a site that seems less scientifically oriented than say, actual physicians.  Australia, though, is beginning to cross that line:

Doctors are pushing for an end to centuries-old anatomical terms named after "old men, kings and gods" claiming they are no longer relevant and represent the biases of much older generations.

And some have moved to teaching the next generation of medics to phase out the irrelevant, confusing and often misogynistic medical parlance and instead use more practical and descriptive terms for body parts in daily practice.

[snip]

"I think we have a personal choice to decolonise our language and these historical terms will fade out. Of course I make sure the students know the eponyms for exam purposes," Dr Small said.

Australia's push to "decolonize" medical language is minor compared to the nonsense from [M]otherboard, but it is part of a nascent movement to push us down the conveyor belt toward a world that forces people to believe, as Winston Smith was forced in 1984, that 2+2=5.

Image: Wikipedia.