As if we don’t have enough problems in this world…

 

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver opened the 117^th Congress by asking his God for “strength” in healing partisan divisions, “Amen, and Awomen.” Besides being a forlorn hope, this obvious attempt to play along with the "inclusive" game was a bit forced and too much on the obsequious side—particularly since the word “Amen” is not even “masculine” or “feminine.” It is a “good” thing that the English language is so “versatile,” since these silly word games would play havoc on the Romance languages.

But that was just the opening salvo. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi pushed through the U.S. House of Representatives a “code of conduct” change in its written rules, changing “gendered language” in favor of “gender-inclusive” wording, although the changes do not penalize members for actually having the audacity to use “gendered language” on the floor—although the wording may be “edited” in the “inclusive” way in the official minutes. The Rules Committee unveiled the changes on Friday, and by Monday it was approved by a strictly party-line vote, allegedly to “promote diversity and inclusion,” instead of confusion and reading incomprehension.

Ok, so in the name of promoting “gender inclusion,” the new rules changes are as follows:

In clause 1(c)(9) of rule X, strike ‘‘seamen’’ and insert ‘‘seafarers’’.

Well, OK, that may be petty but otherwise not a big deal, except that these two words don’t exactly mean the same thing. A seaman is someone whose occupation is performed on ship and at sea; a “seafarer” is someone who is more likely to be a traveler who happens to be on a ship strictly as a mode of transportation, and not as part of a skilled occupation.

In clause 4(a)(1)(B) of rule X, strike ‘Chairman’’ and insert ‘‘Chair’’.

This is not a big deal either, since the terms are interchangeable—although “chair” sounds more like an inanimate object and not a term of respect for the person holding the position.

Then we really get into the “heart” of what really disturbs the gender politicians:

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, step-mother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, step-sister, half brother, half sister, grandson, or grand- daughter’’ and insert ‘‘parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, step-child, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild’’.

The gender “inclusion” crew has it all covered there, don’t they? Frankly, it sounds more like everyone and no one is included all at once. It is not exactly clear what is to replace these terms. “He” or “she”? Well, if we are going to go this far, why not go all the way?

In clause 10(b) of rule XXIII—strike ‘‘submit his or her resignation’’ and insert ‘‘resign’’; strike ‘‘he or she serves’’ and insert ‘‘such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serves’’; and strike ‘‘he or she holds’’ and insert ‘‘such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner holds’’. In clause 15(d)(2) of rule XXIII, strike ‘‘father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife, father-in-law, or mother-in-law’’ and insert ‘‘parent, child, sibling, spouse, or parent-in-law’’. In clause 4 of rule XXVII, strike ‘‘himself or herself’’ and insert ‘‘themself’’.

Maybe it is just me, but these “changes” just don’t “roll off the tongue” very well, let alone do a good job at tidying-up the terms for the sake of comprehensibility. It’s even worse than the gender politician insisting on saying the awkward “women and men” instead of “men and women,” or “sister and brother” when “brother and sister” just sounds better. After all, nobody has a problem with saying “mother and father” because it just rolls off better. And what about the term “sisterhood”? Unlike the term “brotherhood” which has always had universal connotations, “sisterhood” implies something exclusionary and discriminatory, and we can find other terms of similar condition. This is as much if not more about self-conceit and egotism as it is about feeling “excluded” and “diminished” by simple words.

Of course this could all be treated as “comedy relief” in the midst of perhaps the worst constitutional crisis in the country’s history since the Civil War. But alas it is “serious” business for people who apparently have too much time on their hands. And gender-neutral wording, while it may assuage the tender egos of certain people, doesn’t address ongoing prejudices, bigotries and attempts to silence and dehumanize certain “ethnic” groups that Donald Trump and his familiar Steven Miller have inspired, and which semantic games do nothing to stop.  I provide the following evidence for your edification; note that the "ethnic" group that constitutes the largest minority group in this country either has no corporeal value, or is assumed to have no opinion worth hearing, using the term "race" as a means of exclusion: