Democrats Declare War On Words 'Husband,' 'Wife'

a reply to: Gryphon66

He says, commenting on one specific example out of billions in a poisonous trend that spans the better part of half a century and the whole of Western civilisation.

My husband calls me the old lady.

just sayin

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
Well, at least they're not making up new words yet like here in Sweden. Oh they are? Right, making up new words and changing definitions is the bread and butter of liberals.

Changing pronouns have been around since the 1890s. It's not really a new thing.

Michael David Spivak Born May 25, 1940 Queens, New York Nationality American Fields Mathematics Differential geometry Spivak pronouns Alma mater Princeton University Doctoral advisor John Milnor Known for The Hitchhiker's Guide to Calculus Calculus on Manifolds: A Modern Approach to Classical Theorems of Advanced Calculus MathTime Michael David Spivak (born May 25, 1940)[1] is an American mathematician specializing in differential geometry, an expositor of mathematics, and the founder of Publish-or-Perish Press. Spivak is the author of the five-volume A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry. In 1964 Spivak received a Ph.D. from Princeton University under the supervision of John Milnor.[2] In 1985 he received the Leroy P. Steele Prize.

The precise history of the Spivak pronouns is unclear, since they appear to have been independently created multiple times, each time likely without knowledge of the previous.

The first recorded use of the pronouns was in a January 1890 editorial by one James Rogers, who derives e, es, and em from he and them in response to the proposed "thon".

In 1975, Christine M. Elverson of Skokie, Illinois, won a contest by the Chicago Association of Business Communicators to find replacements for "she and he", "him and her", and "his and hers". Her "transgender pronouns" ey, em, and eir were formed by dropping the "th" from they, them, and their.[(See 'em.) The article that first reported the pronouns treated them as something of a joke, concluding with the line, "A contestant from California entered the word 'uh' because 'if it isn't a he or a she, it's uh, something else.' So much of eir humor."

Writing in 1977, poet, playwright, and linguist Lillian Carlton submitted a letter to the journal American Speech reporting (and arguing against) the invention by "an American professor" (likely Dr. Donald MacKay) of pronouns based on "the long sound of the vowel e." Although her primary argument against the proposed word is her assertion that English "already [has] a perfectly good... word that refers to either sex," namely "one," she also raises the observations that "spoken fast, it comes uncomfortably close to the illiterate hisself... [Furthermore], ee sounds too much like he and would therefore be confusing." Similar arguments, along with the desire to distance themselves from the male-centric singular "he" and derivatives, are still a primary factor in the proliferation of constructed pronouns[citation needed].

en.m.wikipedia.org...

I'll admit it makes sense to do this. They're old terms.

But something feels wrong to me somehow. I know there's always been gays and transgenders and/or people with both sex organs. But sometimes I wonder if these changes we make are more than that. They affect our society in ways which're currently incalculable. This isn't 3500 BC or 400 AD anymore. Equal tolerance for gays and straights today is not the same as equal tolerance would have been in the past. It's a different environment. Yet people in general treat them as the same. Everything is blurred.

It's an experiment. Always has been. The only reliable thing in our universe is change. Don't hold onto things--you'll inevitably lose them.

I do think things can chagne too slow or too fast, however. It's all about getting the pacing right. What's our pace?

The change ain't finished. It'll keep on. I''ll give some ideas. Someday, males might be able to have babies. And babies sometimes are grown in artificial wombs--woman will not be required. Adults will look like children or change their appearnce in other ways to be creative. Sexual desire will be much more diverse than ti's now and some people will choose not to have it at all. Currently things which're thought to be acceptable will be deemed as disordered or problematic and thereafter removed from circulation. Incest might become legal and same-family marriage common--using gene therapy to correct for flaws. We will eat meat which is artificial or otherwise grown in machines and it'll not be legal to farm/hunt animals anymore. On and on. Anything you currently feel is detestable or outrageous might very well occur in the future and be well within societal rules.

Just sit back and imagine something which disgusts you. Now imagine it's acceptable in society to engage in that. THAT is the future. Not everything will cause disgust, but some things will, sometimes greatly. Fortunatley, the future happens slowly and it'll come in small doses. Depending on your ability to change with the times, it's easy or hard. If you suddenly leaped many decades or centuries in the future, you'll probably feel disgusted no matter how much tolerance you currently have. Nobody stretches forever.

Another idea: Induced emotion and retrainable response. Capacity to feel any emotion by using a chip or field and to retrain ingrained emotion--like emotions which're causing strain. And also the elimination of some instinctive respones (like involving morality) using chips or training in specific circumstances--like law enforcement or emergency response. All of this will result in a citizenry which is much more free to feel what it wants and yet is also controlled more when it's life and death.