Reference: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/14/us/sexual-preference-amy-coney-barrett-offensive-trnd/index.html;
and https://unherd.com/thepost/when-did-sexual-preference-become-politically-correct/
First, “sexual preference”
President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, used the phrase “sexual preference” in responding to a question about the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Well, the lefty woke dogpack was on that like white on rice (geez, we hope the use of the word “white” in this context isn’t somehow racist). In particular, Senator Mazie Hirono (D. Hawaii – oops, Hawai’i) condemned in a lengthy statement. “‘Even though you didn’t give a direct answer I think your response did speak volumes,'” Hirono said. ‘Not once, but twice, you used the term sexual preference to describe those in the LGBTQ community. And let me make clear, sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term. . . . It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not.'” Apparently the favored term in the queer crowd is “sexual orientation.”
Makes one wonder what the “B”s do when they consider, “well, do I want a guy or a girl tonight?” Isn’t that expressing a sexual preference? Oh, right, it’s OK if some “gay” or “Bi” says it, not if some straight person says it, just like certain other words like nigger. The nominee, of course, appropriately fell all over herself apologizing, since she wants the job and wasn’t looking to feed the wokes some choice soundbite. But as the above unherd article points out in debunking this nonsense:
Let’s start with the obvious. Referring to sexual preference doesn’t have to imply that sexual orientation is a choice. The meanings of ‘preference’ and ‘choice’ are distinct. One can have a preference in the absence of a choice and a choice in the absence of a preference. We may make choices on the basis of our preferences, but that does not mean that we choose what we prefer.
Admittedly, in some situations, a preference can change — and thus it could be argued that the use of ‘sexual preference’ might imply that sexual orientation can be changed. However, if that’s the problem then it also applies to ‘sexual orientation’ as a form of words. Certain kinds of orientation — a political orientation, for instance — can be changed. Other kinds can’t, hence the term ‘fixed orientation’. Of course, there are many preferences that can’t be changed either — hence the term ‘innate preference’.
So, looking at the matter objectively, there’s no reason why ‘sexual preference’ should be deemed incorrect and ‘sexual orientation’ correct.
What’s really at issue here are the subjective and selective judgements of a cultural elite who think they should determine what the rest of us can and can’t say. Indeed, they’re literally re-writing the dictionary.
Just look at the relevant online entry on the Merriam-Webster website, which makes the following declaration: “The term preference as used to refer to sexual orientation is widely considered offensive in its implied suggestion that a person can choose who they are sexually or romantically attracted to.”
Yet on the same page, as archived on the 28 September 2020, the statement is absent. If ‘sexual preference’ really is “widely considered offensive”, then why did Merriam-Webster — America’s premier dictionary — wait until now to tell us?
One might also ask why Joe Biden referred to ‘sexual preference’ earlier this year without Democrat senators lining up to condemn him? The inconsistency is glaring.
But then performative offence-taking isn’t meant to be fair. When just about any form of words can be presented in the worst possible light, the temptation to do so as-and-when convenient is overwhelming. The only way to ensure consistency is to assume the best of everyone unless proven otherwise — which is one choice we can make.
We second these sentiments 100%. Language can be a tricky thing, but the woke crowd should not be allowed to become Humpty Dumpty and take over the English language:
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’,” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t- till I tell you. . . . “
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”
Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass, Chapter VI (1871).
As noted in a prior post (National Coming Out Day? Oh C’mon, October 11, 2020), in our father’s words on the issue of words being taken over by the left:
It is the media which instantly adopted the word “gay” to describe homosexuals, who had been looking for a term without negative connotations. The media has now used the term so much and so frequently, that ordinary people find themselves using it. Yet it is a political term, i.e., one that was chosen to conceal the reality of what it stands for, a public relations term which is supposed to make the worse appear the better cause.
Second, using the word “noose” gets you cancelled
Reference: https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/10/22/926622333/penn-state-mens-basketball-coach-resigns-after-investigation-into-noose-comment, citing to and quoting from an article in ESPN’s The Undefeated.
Trying to buck up one of his black players who had hit a tough stretch, Penn State Men’s Basketball coach Pat Chambers instead got himself investigated, which led to his resignation, presumably to preempt getting cancelled/fired.
The player, Brakkton Booker, had shot poorly in a recent game, and he recalled Chambers saying “I want to be a stress reliever for you. You can talk to me about anything. I need to get some of this pressure off you. … I want to loosen the noose that’s around your neck.”
Bolton claimed these words were racist and “hurt” him since it evoked “the history of lynching, slavery and racial terrorism.” He claims this was the reason he later transferred to a different program.
Well, snowflakes and blackflakes are sure turning over every rock to find something to be offended about. Here you have a coach seemingly trying to help one of his players maximize his potential and it blows up in his face. Of course, given the current environment chances are he never would have said anything about a noose around a black person’s neck today since we’ve all become appropriately woke (some of us, anyway), but this happened well over a year ago.
Perhaps it wasn’t the smartest reference to make in any event, but the message seemed reasonably clear to us and it didn’t have anything to do with being racist or about lynching. He was doing a coach’s job, albeit perhaps clumsily. But should a person’s life and career be over because of this? There just is no proportionality anymore.
It’s certainly getting more and more difficult to have conversations with people who are generally in the resentment and being offended business. After all, who knows what purely subjective interpretation a listener might have? There are lots of people today in the resentment and being offended business just looking for things to complain about, often solely on the basis of whether or not they happen to like the speaker. Today there would not even have been any “investigation,” he’d have just been thrown out on his keyster. Well, as the old saw goes, no good deed goes unpunished.