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.
Continue reading →
The growing divide among the States
Headlines this week continue to illustrate the growing de facto secession taking place in the “United States” in 2025.
As Tom Knapp pointed out, many States that are labelled red or blue are not reliably so. But the big urban areas drive the train. Smaller communities in the rural and frontier areas (outside the big metro zones) are dragged along, often kicking and screaming but unable to make any impact.
State boundaries are easy to use to emphasize differences, but it is too easy. Still, we see the divide growing. Somebody in Ferndale, California or Milford, Oregon may be disgusted by what the politicians in Sacramento, supported by San-San denizens, or in Salem, supported by Portland and much of the Willamette Valley do, but have no choice. The same for the inner urban cores of Houston and Dallas and El Paso (and even Austin itself) when the numerous smaller cities are less blue: Odessa, San Angelo, Waco, etc.
There are many issues over which to divide: let us look at just two.
Continue reading →