On Political Correctness: Sex

I detest political correctness, which should really be called social correctness. It's a form of benign tyranny formulated by people who think they are masters of right speech and behavior, and want us to emulate them. 

It was created in 1807, when siblings Thomas and Henrietta Bowdler published The Family Shakspeare [sic]. Bowdler wrote, “nothing is added to the original text; but those words and expressions are omitted which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a family.” 

In the 20th century its first use, as "political," appears to have been in Russia following the 1917 revolution, describing speech that followed the Communist Party line.

In our time the first notable appearance of socially correct language came in 1971 with Gloria Steinem's Ms. magazine, which engendered the "Ms" honorific for women regardless of marital status.

Now, 50 years after Ms. hit the newsstands, its homonymous honorific is used almost exclusively in the United States. No language other than English has a construction remotely like it.

Lately the group of personal honorifics has been expanded again with the introduction of Mx. for people who don't want to reveal their gender. I can see it for people with a unisex name, but if you're tagged with something gender specific like Arabella or Oscar, not so much.

But wait--there are some people who claim to have no gender. That's where I start having trouble with social correctness run amok.

I doubt any other generational cohorts have been so obsessive about self labeling: GenX, GenY (aka Millennials) and now GenZ. What's next? The Greek alphabet?

Much of this labeling zaniness extends to sexual identity.

Millennials naturally have different ways and ideas from their predecessors. Having been raised in an always positive "there are no losers" atmosphere by helicopter parents, many of them believe they can do whatever they want in the world and the world will accommodate them.

That includes identifying as any gender they feel like.

The terminology of gender identity has been expanded beyond reason, and certainly beyond science. Some Millennials identify as "cisgender," which simply means identifying as their birth gender--perhaps they feel a need for label equality with transgender people. Then there are the "non-binaries" who feel they don't belong to either gender, and others with other labels who claim to have no gender, or have multiple genders, or have a fluid, or changeable, gender. Really?

The s.c. folks would have us learn a whole new system of honorifics and personal pronouns to accommodate those who want to be different.¹

We're born with some things we can't choose: our race, our parents, our gender, the shape of our ears, genetic traits, our sex, and many other things. Yes, both gender and sex are on that list, and only one, sex, can be changed.

A host of terms surround sex change surgery, which is frequently referred to as sexual "reassignment" or "confirmation" surgery. I find the use of those terms humorous. Who initiated the incorrect assignment? God, maybe?

I suggest these terms are part of the Millennial language shift in which all things must have a positive spin.

Here's the fact: sex is mutable, gender is not.

Surgery and drugs can change outward appearance. Primary and secondary sexual characteristics can be added, removed, and reversed. Gender goes much deeper. One's gender is tied to the psyche, to memories, and infuses us right down to the DNA. It cannot, with current medical technology, be changed.

No matter the sex you might change into, you are always, down in that core DNA, the male or female you were born. The Y chromosome can be neither deleted nor added.

God doesn't make mistakes, science doesn't lie, and there are only two genders.

Lest anyone think me biased, bigoted, or prejudiced, let me say for the record that I concur with the Roman playwright Publius Terentius Afer (c. 190-158 B.C.), who said, "I am a man, and consider nothing human to be alien to me."

--- Diogenes, 4/29/2021

 

¹ Here are two links that go to informational material published independently by two separate American universities. Both concern the use of respectful and socially correct (according to the publishing organization) pronouns and forms of address. 

University of South Carolina at Aiken: https://www.usca.edu/diversity-initiatives/training-resources/guide-to-inclusive-language/inclusive-language-guide/file

University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee: https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/

 

The Demon Trump

"Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion,  seeking someone to devour." 1 Peter, 5:8

Peter's warning is timeless and we should pay heed to it. Every society, every time period, every nationality, has its demons that prowl the streets or public transportation or social media, trolling for converts to their dark causes.

In the United States in the first half of the twenty-first century that demon is Donald J. Trump.

He may not be roaring as loud or as publicly as in the past, but he is still out and about, scheming with others of his ilk to find ways to disrupt American society and looking for ways to set us against one another. He delights in chaos and disorder.

The importance of knowing your enemy was first written down by the Chinese tactician Sun Tzu (c. 544 BC--c. 496 BC). Like Peter's warning it is timeless, applicable to all times and all places.

I'm returning to Trump, who was after all the reason this blog came into being, to suggest a means of getting to know him.

There are myriad books in print denouncing Trump. If you read only one, I strongly recommend Michael Cohen's Disloyal, A Memoir. Many publications claim to bring you the real, close-up, personal Trump. Most are by people with axes to grind or who are seeking fame and profit. Many focus on special angles (family, sex, politics) and are therefore suspect.

Cohen was personal attorney to Trump from 2006 until 2018. He had grown up around mafiosi, admiring their power and influence, and found his own chance to act similarly in the Trump Organization. He became a fall guy for Trump, going to prison in 2019 when the law was getting too close to "the Boss."

He knows who the skeletons are and where they're buried. The Republican Party and Bill Barr used violence and coercion trying to keep him from writing Disloyal.

I value the book because it corroborates and validates everything I and other writers have said about Trump. On the flip side it lays bare everything we all knew about Trump that no one in public life would say out loud. 

Remember them, the cowards and toadies? Cohen has a lot to say about them. He uses the word "sycophant" frequently.

Disloyal is neither a pleasant nor an entertaining read. It is, however, remarkably enlightening. We all know that Trump is an excessively nasty man who surrounds himself with others of his kind. But the levels of sleaze, vulgarity and flat-out evil to which he will stoop in order to get ahead, to win, to beat someone just for the sake of beating them at something, are astounding.

Cohen's description of getting sucked into the Trump cult is fascinating. He is clear about the organization being a cult, with Trump using all the classic manipulative tools of tyrants and cult leaders. Consider this first-person description of classic doublethink: 

I actively, rabidly, incessantly, insistently, repeated the lies and innuendo, knowing in my heart that it was wrong--but unable to stop myself. . . . I really and truly had actually taken leave of my senses.¹

Cohen describes it here and there throughout the book, as if he's still trying to figure out just what happened to him.

Interestingly, Cohen points out one way in which Trump differs from most cult leaders: he is not willing to die for his cause. Unlike Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Marshall Applewhite, who died for their beliefs, Trump will never sacrifice himself for anything or anyone. 

As we learned from the January 6 insurrection, he will drive his followers to extremes, including self-sacrifice, but will keep himself at a safe distance, watching and egging on, never putting himself in harm's way, because he is, like all bullies, a coward.

Cohen discloses that despite his apparent aggressiveness, Trump dislikes confrontation. Although he made the line "You're fired" famous on his execrable "reality" show, he never personally fires anyone, but has a staff member do the deed. That's also why some White House staff learned they had been terminated via Twitter. Trump hasn't the courage to face someone and say it.

Finally there's the relationship with Vladimir Putin. As Cohen puts it, 

Trump loved Putin because the Russian had the balls to take over an entire nation and run it like his personal company . . . an entire society and civilization bent to the will of a single man was how Trump viewed the ideal historical form of government--with him as the man in charge, of course.²

That is the real Donald Trump, and that is the reason we Americans can never let our guard down as long as he is out there roaring and looking for victims.

---Diogenes, 4/24/21

 

The book: Cohen, Michael. Disloyal, A Memoir: The True Story Of The Former Personal Attorney To President Donald J. Trump. Skyhorse Publishing, New York, 2020. 

Your public or university library probably has it. It's also available on Kindle. 

¹ Cohen, pp. 118-19.

² Cohen, p. 246.

 

Superfund, Don't Defund

I am writing this the day after the verdict in the case of Derek Chauvin was delivered. It was the right verdict, and the celebration was justified.

It may have been a Pyrrhic victory.

In the period during the trial, from March 29 when opening statements were delivered through April 20 when the verdict was read, a total of 52 Americans--more than two per day--died at the hands of police in 24 states. That number includes at least 21 Blacks and Hispanics and four teens (race and age were unreported in some cases).¹

More civilians are killed annually by police in the United States than in any other country on Earth.² 

How might we deal with that appalling statistic? Defunding was the knee-jerk response several months ago, but that's hardly a solution. An unfortunate fact of human society is its need for policing. Take away that guard against lawlessness and chaos would reign. No, defunding would not be the answer.

I propose superfunding American police agencies. Why do I think I'm qualified to make such a suggestion? Because I am an American civilian who has been on the wrong side of police on occasion and have been roughed up more than once. Because I'm not afraid to speak against bullies, power, and arrogance. Because I know bullshit when I hear it. And because I'm not a politician.

Policing is a state responsibility, and a federal police force would be unconstitutional. Therefore this program would be offered on an opt-in basis to the states. Enrollment would be open, with no penalty for not joining at the outset.

Step One: Scale back or repeal the federal programs through which military equipment has been acquired and require the Department of Defense to buy back all the already-deployed matériel at cost; purely defensive gear, e.g. shields and body armor may be retained. Funds from the buyback should go to a special municipal fund for police strategic support.

Step Two: Through the Department of Justice develop a grant-in-aid program that would provide funding for police recruitment and training up to 250% of the state's current budget for its academy. States and municipalities with their own academies would be invited to apply via a nationally published RFP.

In order to qualify for an award all applicants must:

• Demonstrate that the academy utilizes or will utilize best practices in all phases of training. 
• Require all cadets and returning officers to receive intensive training in sensitivity to matters of race, gender, religion, and domestic violence triggers.
• Demonstrate that all recruits are thoroughly screened for tendencies toward militarism, racism, homophobia, or any other antisocial behavior. Potential candidates from minority communities should be strongly encouraged to apply. It is especially important to have native language speakers policing ethnic communities where a language other than English is spoken.
  
• Provide a plan whereby all police officers in the jurisdiction, regardless of any previous education or training, retake full academy training including the sensitivity training noted above. Any who refuse may be given the choice of moving to administrative duty or of taking retirement at the officer's current rank.
• It is understood that the above requirement could be difficult for large jurisdictions. Accordingly, the DOJ will be flexible in accepting any reasonable plan whereby current officers may be rotated through the training throughout and up to five years after the grant-in-aid expires.

Step Three:

Prior to issuing the RFP, select up to five police departments in jurisdictions that have had recent civil unrest to serve as test beds for specific aspects of the program outlined above.

 

I understand that some of that proposed program may sound impracticable, but I'm not joking. I genuinely believe much of America's police violence problem could be remediated, if not solved, through training and retraining, careful vetting of recruits, and sensitivity to ethnic concerns.

I also understand that this would be a fantastically expensive program. But ask yourself what price we might put on the lives of the 1,021 Americans who were killed by police in 2020.

So if any police professional or politician might be reading this, just ask yourself "What if?"

And think about the value of those 1,021 lives.

 

--- Diogenes, 21 April 2021

 

¹ Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States, Retrieved 21 April 2021. This link leads to monthly lists of police-involved deaths from 2009 to the present. It contains links to news reports about most of the cases.

² Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124039/police-killings-rate-selected-countries/, Retrieved 21 April 2021.

 

Slaves to Nature

Here in our part of Virginia spring has crept up on us as it always seems to do, and has kick-started a preview of summer. That means if we don't want to be overgrown by all manner of weeds, vines, and other pretty but nuisance plants, it's all hands on deck to exercise our dominion and show them their place.

And yes, that means even us nerdy sedentary types. 

Diogenes and I have grabbed our gardening gloves and straw hats and are fighting the good fight. It's always pleasant to get out and work with the earth, but the blog is our true labor and we shan't let it linger long without attention.

We'll be back.

--- Richard Brown, 4/12/2021

RIP GOP

A long-lost friend at UPI just shot us this surprising release:

GOP To Reorganize 

By Geoff Talbot

Des Moines, Iowa. (April 1, 2021) -- The Republican National Committee at its annual meeting in Des Moines has unexpectedly announced a major overhaul of the party and a re-evaluation of its direction and goals. 

According to Executive Secretary Nikki Dumond the decision to reconfigure the party was made by the executive committee, who saw the need to return the party to its historical ideology. They envision something more akin to the "compassionate conservatism" propounded by former President George W. Bush than to the bluster of former President Donald Trump.

The executive decision was announced without fanfare late in the night of March 31 at the end of the closing plenary session of the meeting. It was first met with stunned silence. Then, as the executive committee members left the stage, the roomful of delegates exploded in shouted questions. A bit of quiet applause was noted, but quickly silenced.

The mood in the room following the announcement was mostly angry and confused. A group appearing to be the Trump faction were gathered in a corner and were heard plotting violent action against the executive committee. Many other delegates seemed introspective. A few spoke hopefully of the possibility of the party gaining political ground with the change in philosophy.

In a brief interview granted to this reporter by RNC President Vonna McDonald, the leader of the party spoke bluntly. "We can't call ourselves the Grand Old Party anymore," she admitted. "There's nothing grand about denying the vote to American citizens of any color or race. Look at the nonsense that idiot Brian Kemp is pulling off in Georgia. That's just bull----. It's going to set the party back twenty years."

Asked about Donald Trump's future with the party, McDonald said, "He has none. The position of the Republican Party is that we formally renounce Donald Trump and all his lies and his empty promises. Some of our members may have trouble with that. They'll just have to come around."

This announcement is just the latest in a series of political bombshells that have rocked America in the past year. It remains to be seen how the Biden administration and Congressional Republican leadership will respond to it.

 

--- Diogenes, April Fool's Day, 2021