Don’t Know Much Biology


Over at PowerLine, John Hinderacker has a post about a Canadian who legally changed his gender to female in order to save $91 a month on car insurance.

Some “trans” Canadians were angry, much as some actual Indians were angry at Elizabeth Warren for worming her way onto the Harvard faculty on the basis of high cheekbones and alleged family lore:

Members of the trans community in Canada have reacted with outrage to David’s cost-cutting scheme.

‘I think it cheapens the whole process. It sort of casts doubt on everybody else’s motives for making those changes,’ said Marie Little, a former chair of the Trans Alliance Society. ‘I think it gives ammunition to people who want to take rights away from trans people.’

That’s one way of looking at it. In my view, it highlights the absurdity of the concepts of gender “identification” and “assignment.” The more people who make the current regime look silly, the sooner it will collapse of its own weight.

This kind of nonsense highlights what happens when we allow the meanings of words to be hijacked.

Sex is a property of living organisms. In the case of human beings, sex is determined by the presence or lack of Y-chromonsomes. People with Y-chromonsomes are male, i.e., men and boys. People without Y-chromonsomes are female, i.e., women and girls. The science is really quite settled on this.

Gender is a property of words. Nouns and pronouns in the English language can be masculine, feminine, indefinite, or neuter. When speaking of a human being, the feminine form is used for a woman or a girl, the masculine form is used for a man or a boy, and the indefinite form (which is the same as the masculine) is used when the person’s sex is unknown. Note that the forms differ only for singular nouns. The plural forms are the same (and should not be used when speaking of a single individual).

Other languages have different rules for dealing with gender, but the biology of sex is the same worldwide.

Don’t Know Much Biology


Campus Reform reports that Eugene Lang College is offering a “Queer Ecologies” course this fall devoted to countering “heterosexist” explanations of animals and nature. According to the course description, students will be taught to “reimagine evolutionary processes, ecological interactions, and environmental politics in light of queer theory” by drawing from research in fields such as feminist science studies and environmental justice. It appears that the well-settled science concerning where babies come from will not be considered.

During an interview with Campus Reform, Davis explained that queer ecologies is an “interdisciplinary field that examines the relationship between sexuality and nature, thinking beyond the boundaries of assuming that heterosexuality is the norm or standard.”

The field “inquires into the sexual lives of animals, plants, and bacteria—lives that are often much more strange, adaptable, and queer than anything humans do,” she elaborated. “It also seeks to critique how heterosexuality is presumed as natural.”

Read the whole thing.

The tuition at Eugene Lang College (a part of the The New School in New York City) is $23,480 per semester.

Social Justice Math


Campus Reform reports that a professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago has contributed a chapter to a new textbook arguing that math teachers “have a responsibility” to adopt “social justice pedagogies.”

I have a bad feeling about that.

‘You are a slow learner, Winston,’ said O’Brien gently.

‘How can I help it?’ he blubbered. ‘How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.’

‘Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.’

Words Have Meaning (And That’s Double Plus Ungood)


There’s nothing new in the SJWs’ current attempt to hijack our language by using words in ways that don’t fit their meanings found in common dictionaries. That method of trying to control the parameters of thought and argument was old when Orwell wrote his essay on Newspeak.

Sarah Hoyt has an essay over at PJ Media about her experience with The Semantic Whoredom of the Left. She has an interesting perspective as someone trained in linguistics who is not a native-speaker of English.

But it wasn’t until l’affaire prom dress that I realized it wasn’t just their etymology that was faulty but that these people had in fact built themselves an entirely new language, with words that are in common use, kidnapped, raped, and made to parade in public with disfiguring makeup.  Or if you prefer, with words that are in common use voided of their signification, and filled with meanings they were never meant to have, meanings that can only be understood if you share the basic assumptions of leftist liberals.

Also,

It’s quite possible that the true believers are effectively beyond our reach.  But we should try to force those who are new converts, freshly spewed from universities where the cult is taught, to unpack their assumptions and confront the real meaning of words.

Making them read dictionary definitions, and a bit of history is a good beginning.

Above all, do not accept their definition.  Fight against it.  They’re holding perfectly good words captive and making them commit acts against their nature.

And corrupting language is corrupting thought.

Read the whole thing.

They’ve got be be carefully untaught.