Posted on 03/26/2017 4:41:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Previously, when people scoffed at the idea of language as being an important building block of civilized social structure I would simply roll my eyes. These days not so much.
Weve covered more than a few stories here about special snowflakes on college campuses or writers at Alt-Left publications demanding this or that change to the English (or more properly American) language to accommodate transgender sensitivities. As has happened all too often across the span of history, its easy enough to simply mock these trends and wait for them to die off like the fad of swallowing live goldfish or eating off lead plates. Unfortunately, these things have a way of creeping up on you. When they make their way consistently into the mainstream media which the majority of consumers absorb its already too late and youre left wondering what happened, much like Ned Ludd staring at the stocking frames hed smashed, still unable to believe the industrial revolution was coming.
In terms of the Social Justice Warriors and their efforts to discard millennia of science in favor of gender impersonation, the Associated Press has taken a large and alarming step toward the normalization of such thinking. Their stylebook has now been updated with cautions issued to authors about being too old fashioned when referring to men, women and the gender definitions of our species. (Washington Times)
In a Friday email to subscribers listing updated entries for its style manual, the Associated Press is urging journalists to avoid making references in news stories that suggest there are only two sexes in the human race.
The term gender, the AP Stylebook says, is [n]ot synonymous with sex.
Gender refers to a persons social identity while sex refers to biological characteristics, the style guide explains.
Not all people fall under one of two categories for sex or gender, according to leading medical organizations, so avoid references to both, either or opposite sexes or genders as a way to encompass all people. When needed for clarity or in certain stories about scientific studies, alternatives include men and women, boys and girls, males and females.
The AP is also venturing into the linguistically horrible territory of extending plurals (they, them, their) into areas where such pronouns have no business being found. Theyre not ready to jump on the, xe or ze bandwagon yet, but having given the first inch, the mile is no doubt soon to follow.
For a couple of years now Ive comforted myself (perhaps in a delusional fashion) in thinking that our system of courts could eventually sort this out through the various lawsuits currently clogging the system over transgender bathroom cases. If the Supreme Court could eventually demand that some plaintiffs provide scientific proof (which does not exist) that mankind isnt comprised of two fundamental genders which are defined by not only obvious physical structures but our very DNA, the issue would be settled. Yes, there is a small segment of the population with genetic aberrations which manifest in the form of sexual organs and traits of both genders, but thats not evidence of some cancellation of the basic biological design of human beings. It is, as described, an aberration which we do our best to accommodate. As for those born with the normal complement of XX or XY structures in their 23rd chromosomal pairs, simply feeling like the other gender (which means the same thing as sex for purposes of this discussion) doesnt mean you are that gender. This is as true as the fact that people who suffer from Cotards Syndrome are not actually zombies.
Words have power and its a power which becomes magnified when it begins showing up in widely read and trusted sources. What were seeing now is the misappropriation of a words which has been well understood for centuries. The Associated Press is flatly, boldly and incorrectly stating that, the term gender is not synonymous with sex. This is demonstrably false. The etymological roots of gender date back to the Old French gendre from at least the 14th century and it actually came into common use as a more socially acceptable replacement for the word sex when the latter took on erotic undertones in literature.
The male-or-female sex sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for sex of a human being, in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.
All of this is common knowledge, but the cohort which so often claims to be the defenders of science (at least when discussing global warming) has no interest in science when it comes to this question. And now their demands are being taken as gospel by mainstream media outlets such as the Associated Press. The battle for this reality may already be lost at this point because the courts all too often follow cultural trends whether they are willing to admit it or not. Gender impersonation is quickly becoming accepted as some sort of new gender reality and its being embedded in our language. Its a truly sad thing to observe.
The AP is not in charge of what is normal.
God, ain't this the truth? Some losers on tumblr make up a bunch of fake "genders" and the media wants us to accept it as the unquestioned truth. Screw that.
Also, the AP's style guide is a recommendation. I doubt many pay it much mind.
As a friend says, I vote for Gender Temp(orary) or Gender-wimpy
Saying gender has nothing to do with sex is akin to saying water has nothing to do with wet.
John Stuart Mill, 1859 : “The ultimate result of shielding men from the results of folly is to fill the world with fools.”
No one ever said, let’s go behind the bleachers and have some gender.
As I’ve said before, there are only three genders:
1. Male
2. Female
3. Sexually confused
Dang, it’s even difficult to go P
Nietzsche: I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar?
i hope they keep going,’it will be the death knell for journalism.
they will eliminate themselves. thank you jesus, their own idiocy will crush them.
The same group (liberals) who claim to be pro-science completely reject science in this case. Biologically, a person is either male or female. Period. They can’t be both, and they can’t change it.
No, they are correct. There are transgenders, but transsexual is an impossibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.