The House of Representatives goes woke
One of the most despicable things the wokesters are pushing on America is "non-gendered language." It's one thing to do away with work-related descriptions that focus unnecessarily on a person's sex. For example, nobody sane cares if the person chairing a committee is a "chairman" or a "chairwoman." It's another thing entirely to do away with language that accurately describes a person's biological reality. A daughter is not a son and vice versa. Nevertheless, bowing before the radical gender lobby, the Democrat-led House is preparing to do just that.
According to an announcement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and James McGovern (D-Mass.), the Rules Committee chairman, the proposed rules for the 117th Congress will mandate that any words acknowledging biological reality will henceforth be forbidden. The Democrats didn't state matters so bluntly, but that's the import of the announcement.
In their joint press release, Pelosi and McGovern provided an overview of their proposed rules package. Most of it is political gobbledygook that we all know is untrue. If you want a laugh, read about the claim that the new package "prioritizes ethics and accountability in the People's House." But specifically, with respect to the English language, the Democrat duo announced:
It promotes inclusion and diversity. That includes changes that would: establish the Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth; require standing committees to include in their oversight plans a discussion of how committee work over the forthcoming Congress will address issues of inequities on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age, or national origin; honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender neutral; make permanent the Office of Diversity and Inclusion to facilitate a diverse workforce that is reflective of our Members and the districts they represent; and survey the diversity of witness panels at committee hearings to ensure we are hearing from diverse groups of experts as we craft legislation.
The actual details appear in the proposed Resolution to adopt the rules. Henceforth, biological reality is verboten:
In clause 8(c)(3) of rule XXIII, strike "father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half-brother, half-sister, grandson, or granddaughter" and insert "parent, child, sibling, parent's sibling, first cousin, sibling's child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild".
Changing the language in this way destroys clarity and specificity. Our language acknowledges that there is a difference between a mother, who is a woman, and a father, who is a man. This has nothing to do with whether these people are birth parents or not. They are still different and bring a different biological balance to a healthy parenting relationship. Likewise, as every parent knows, while there are always perfectly lovely children who are outliers, the vast majority of sons and daughters develop very differently from each other.
The proposal also makes government language, already ponderous and obscure, wordier, as with these proposals:
(4) In clause 10(b) of rule XXIII—
(A) strike "submit his or her resignation" and insert "resign";
(B) strike "he or she serves" and insert "such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serves"; and
(C) strike "he or she holds" and insert "such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner holds".
In addition to leeching meaning from the English language, the House, following in the footsteps of myriad indoctrination centers (i.e., colleges and universities) across America, is creating "an office of diversity and inclusion." No conservatives need apply.
What is happening here is not inconsequential. It is part of a leftist push to change reality. People who can be taught to deny the evidence of their own eyes can be sold anything. If a person's sex is not fixed and real, then nothing else is real, either. The same government that is selling this kind of lie has created the power to force any other fiction down the public's throat.