English test:

Define the following words:

a. Sex (noun)

b. Gender (noun)

c. Confusion

The entire issue of “sex” and “gender” and hatred of those who differ from us is back in the news headlines. Revelations that the murderer of Charlie Kirk had “non-standard” beliefs and practices has brought this issues forward from the back burner. Actions in various States have ramped this up in the last five months.

Once again, it is obvious that many people in the world – and especially here in the States – not only disagree on how things should (or should not!) be done but on how to define these words. TPOL recently discussed so-called leftists recommendation about banning words that either confused or caused very negative reactions in many people. Primarily their political opponents and those people whom they believed could be persuaded to come over to their side. Of course, this is portrayed as “protecting free speech” as they again pervert and twist principles. Not just the English language.

The Blaze had this provocative headline some time back: DHS updates policy to recognize only two genders: ‘There are only two sexes — male and female’

Since then, a number of fedgov agencies have followed suit. The Donald is blamed, of course. Several States have also done this – taking advantage of that evil “freedom” that The Donald claims to be bringing back to the States and people in general.

As a high school student and engineering student, your writer was taught that “sex” refers to biological creatures, like animals and humans. “Gender” refers to inanimate objects, like the gender of electrical components. Such as plugs (male gender) and outlets (female gender). In the past 40+ years, this clear distinction has mutated. A brief visit to that rarified authority, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, takes several thousand words to try and explain the difference in usage and even the history.

Although the FedGov has officially ended the silliness of requiring people to append “their pronouns” to emails and letters, many States and private businesses still require (or at least practice) that waste of electrons and ink.

For lovers of liberty, the bottom line is simple: let people say whatever they want to provided that they do not use actual violence to try and force others to agree with them. And understand that we are not acting aggressively towards them when we reject their claims, their definitions, and their accusations. No matter how offensive they may believe us to be. Government should stay out of it.

We suppose it is no surprise that this is one more issue that divides millions of Americans. And has become a litmus test for “conservative” versus “liberal” (as those words are commonly used). The Blaze’s headline shows that many people – including writers and editors – are not just confused but suffering mental dissonance on the definitions. As do government goons at all levels.

How should we, as lovers of liberty, look at this matter? Is it really protecting free speech to accept, and not just tolerate but endorse the decision of people to identify themselves as whatever they want? Many libertarians will claim that is essential. We must protect the right for people to state such things. Other lovers of liberty will agree that people can call themselves whatever they want, but that right does not negate other people’s right to refuse to accept that/those labels and participate in their behavior. Truth, they claim, is more important than feelings (emotions) or sociopolitical rhetoric. Some (like us) still consider such statements (and demands to accept them at their spoken value) to be not just lying but evidence of mental problems. Indeed, a form of insanity. And that to accommodate such claims is madness.

But the key is live and let live. If someone wants to claim, “I identify as a unicorn” and as a result their actions and behavior do not aggress against us? Not worth fussing about. We used to say, and wish we could still say, “It’s a free country.” But if, because they claim to be a unicorn, they demand that we provide them a pasture at our expense, let them take a dump where ever they want (like the front door of our business) or that we pay for “transition” (body modifications and drugs), or that we accept their aggression on family members? We have a right to treat them as evil threats to us, to respond appropriately.

And we most certainly have the right to tell them that we believe that they are wrong, that they are a threat, and that we will not play their games. Whether it is claiming that they are a unicorn, a furry, or have a right to take anything from us (much less demand it with accompanying threats). Our response should be appropriate, respectful for them as another human (do unto others as you would have them do unto you), and (save for self-defense and defense of others) do not use force against them.