Liberals restricting language restricts your freedom

The cultural Gestapo is up in arms over Supreme Court nominee Barrett's statement that she "would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference."  The reason for their apoplexy is her failure to use the modish term "sexual orientation" rather than the now offensive term "sexual preference." 

I confess to initial puzzlement over the uproar.  It took me a few minutes to grasp the nature of the objections to Judge Barrett's phrase.  At first, I thought the loony left was appalled by her supposed disingenuousness, since everyone who actually believes that Roe v. Wade legitimized murder must be adrift in a medieval haze.  Then it dawned on me that the atrocious term "preference" assumes that one chooses his sexual identity.  That is the objection.  Those who are homosexual, bisexual, or pansexual — yes, such a thing actually exists — have no choice in the matter.  Supposedly, they were born that way.  Hence, they shouldn't face discrimination over something they can't control, like their skin color.

This type of linguistic contortion raises some interesting questions.  First, how do we explain people who start their adult lives as heterosexual and later change to become homosexual?  We can't say their "preference" changed.  We could perhaps use the politically correct phrase and say their orientation changed.  But that would make no sense since the whole basis for the objectors' insistence on the term "orientation" is that it underscores the immutability of one's sexual genes.  It is supposedly set in stone.  As such, how could someone's "orientation" change?  If it does, it constitutes a preference; if it doesn't, then how can we explain the "late bloomers" other than to frivolously conclude that they are all just crazy Uncle Bucks?

The obvious point being made by the "New Kinseys" is that no such thing as choice or free will exists in one's sexual proclivities.  Under the "it's just who I am" approach, individual responsibility, Judeo-Christian foundations, and every other moral barometer fall by the wayside.  To say this approach can get out of hand quickly is an immense understatement.  Perhaps crazy Uncle Buck is a tad too fond of young Johnny or young Jenny.  After all, it's just who he is.  Indeed, maybe even the family's four-footed furry creature emits irresistible pheromones.

In addition, force-feeding a change in language requires everyone to accept truths that hardly exist.  One of the largest recent studies to date, by Andrea Ganna of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, concluded that no such thing as a gay gene exists and that roughly twenty-five percent of sexual behavior can be explained by genetics while the rest is influenced by environmental and cultural factors.

Beyond the evisceration of truth, what gets lost in the absurdity of insisting upon using certain phrases and condemning those who fail to conform is that whether one has an innate sexual orientation, develops sexual preferences as he matures, or a combination of both is of no consequence to society at large.

Just four months ago, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that that Title VII of the Civil Rights Law of 1964 bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  By concluding that the statutory term discrimination "because of sex" prohibits discrimination in employment not simply due to one's sex (as Congress clearly intended), but due to one's sexual orientation or gender, the Court essentially ensured that the same result will apply (when the case is brought) to other provisions of the Civil Rights Act, which likewise prohibit discrimination based on sex.  Such provisions include, for example, Title VIII, which prohibits discrimination on several bases, including sex, in the rental, sale, or financing of housing programs receiving federal funding.  Moreover, at least twenty-one states and numerous municipalities have laws specifically prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  And the trend continues.

None of these legal protections for one's sexual proclivities has the least thing to do with a biological analysis as to the source or basis of one's sexuality.  It is wholly irrelevant.  If one is a homosexual, irrespective of the reason, the legal system provides a host of protections — period.

In addition, and of equal importance, how others feel about one's homosexuality does not depend on whether it is a preference or an orientation.  Those offended by homosexuals will hardly experience an epiphany based on proof of a "gay gene."  Likewise, those accepting of others' homosexuality won't engage in self-congratulatory gestures should evidence establish that sexual proclivities are solely gene-based.  Nothing will change for the better once the new breed of lexicographers takes control.

In reality, this approach is simply a piece with the linguistic storm sweeping this country.  When people are forced through socio-political pressure to speak only one way, it inexorably follows that they will likewise be forced to think only one way.  Sadly for our country, this Orwellian world is a mere three weeks away.

If you experience technical problems, please write to