November 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — One of the most consistently fascinating things about our ongoing gender revolution is the extent to which activists have successfully colonized institutions once considered more or less impervious to ideology. Most recently, there was the particularly egregious example of Webster’s Dictionary changing the definition of “sexual preference” in order to ensure that Senator Mazie Hirono didn’t beclown herself during the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings.
More broadly, I’ve noted frequently in this space that the media have now entirely adopted the terminology required of the transgender movement — “gender affirmation surgery” or “sex change surgery” vs. genital reconstruction to imitate the opposite sex; using the “preferred female pronouns” of male rapists and pedophiles, etc. If you control the language of the debate, you inevitably control the debate. Culturally speaking, trans activists have done an incredibly effective job of doing this.
It was only a matter of time before National Geographic, the iconic magazine that transported generations around the world each month, would go woke as well. In January 2017, the people running the magazine published their “Gender Revolution” issue, and this fall, they’ve jumped the shark. Archaeologists recently discovered the ancient burial site of a woman who was interred in the Andes Mountains thousands of years ago and were excited to discover that she was buried with stone tools, indicating that she might have been a hunter. This is of particular interest because it is generally understood that men did the hunting. But not so fast, says National Geographic solemnly — this is 2020:
Back in the lab, however, close inspection of the bones suggested the physiology of a biological woman. To confirm, they analyzed a protein that forms tooth enamel and is linked to sex. Importantly, the team cannot know the individual’s gender identity, but rather only biological sex (which like gender doesn’t always exist on a binary). In other words, they can’t say whether the individual lived their [sic] life 9,000 years ago in a way that would identify them [sic] within their [sic] society as a woman.
The idea that hunter-gatherers in the Peruvian mountains thousands of years ago had time to agonize over their gender identity would be written off as manifestly ridiculous a few years ago, but the evolution National Geographic so vigorously promotes appears to be working backward, especially among its writers. The power of any ideology is its ability to force us to reconceptualize the past. National Geographic appears to be on board with the project.
Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook
According to the Daily Mail, the Oxford English Dictionary appears to be following in the footsteps of Webster’s:
The Oxford English Dictionary has updated its entry for ‘woman’ so that it is defined as a ‘person’s’ wife, girlfriend or lover as opposed to only a man's following a gender review. The publisher has altered dozens of terms including ‘woman’, ‘man’, ‘housework’ and ‘high-maintenance’ following a gender diversity review which concluded earlier this year. It was prompted by a 30,000-strong petition, led by PR consultant Maria Beatrice Giovanardi, which claimed that the dictionary was sexist.
‘Woman’ was previously defined in the Oxford Dictionary as a ‘man’s’ wife, girlfriend or lover — but this has now been changed to ‘person’s’. There are also several new terms used within the definition including ‘woman of the moment’ and ‘woman of the match’ as well as the working example ‘with that money, a woman could buy a house and put two kids through college’.
The definition of ‘man’has also undergone a similar revamp to reflect the modern age and now reads as ’a person’s husband, boyfriend or male lover’ … The move comes after Ms Giovanardi launched a petition last year calling for alterations to be made to the dictionary. The demands included altering the synonyms for ‘woman’ and called for the inclusion of the term ‘transgender woman’ to be used within the relevant definitions to ensure it was ‘representative of minorities’.
I was unaware — although I am unsurprised — that one can now get terms in the dictionary revised with a large enough petition (with, I’m sure, the right signatures and the right coverage. I doubt we could get abortion called murder with a million signatures.). The dictionary’s P.R. consultant (I had no idea dictionaries had those now) admitted that the reason for these changes is not only to reflect popular usage, but also because the Oxford Dictionary sets the standard and influences what becomes the norm.
If they change and delete words and definitions, trans activists can point to the Oxford Dictionary and explain to their ideological opponents that they are so unreasonable that not even the dictionary agrees with them. Jordan Peterson insisted that he would never bow to compelled speech. Trans activists simply want to change the definitions of words, to change the meaning of what we say. They are attempting to transition our society to a new way of understanding reality. They have recruited and colonized many of our most venerable and recognizable institutions.
We should be prepared to stand alone against all of this — even when we are made to look insane because everything has changed around us.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews Marjorie Dannenfelser from the Susan B. Anthony List to discuss the 2020 election results and why we need to have hope as Americans. Dannenfelser begins by giving listeners a behind the scenes look at the mood in the White House on election night. She also discusses the implications of the presidential race as well as the Republican wins in Congress.
You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:
