ACLU

ACLU Issues Weak Apology for Erasing 'Women' From RBG Abortion Quote

"It was a mistake among the digital team," says executive director Anthony Romero.

|

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is very sorry for rewriting a famous quote from the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg so that it would be gender neutral.

"It was a mistake among the digital team," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "Changing quotes is not something we ever did."

Until last week, that was: On September 18, the ACLU's Twitter feed republished one of RBG's notable comments about abortion. The revered feminist legal icon had said "the decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life" and that the government shouldn't take that decision out of a woman's hands.

But according to modern progressive parlance, it is an anachronism to assert that only women can give birth, since transgender men can become pregnant, too. The ACLU thus made some alterations:

Regardless of one's position on trans issues and the rapidly evolving demands of progressive activists with respect to conscious language choices, it is wrong to go back in time and pretend that people used different words. Demands for greater sensitivity should not prompt a literal rewriting of history. Progressive thought leaders of the very, very recent past recognized fundamental differences between men and women—it's absurd to pretend otherwise, and to obscure this fact by changing the speech they used.

Moreover, while this isn't the biggest issue ever, it hardly assuages concerns that the ACLU is veering off course. This organization, renowned for its principled commitment to the defense of civil liberties, increasingly appears to have been captured by overzealous young progressives who are transforming it into just another liberal advocacy group. Whereas the old ACLU was always willing to defend the rights of unsympathetic individuals, the new ACLU is somewhat more cautious about taking cases that might offend liberal sensibilities. Similarly, it's hard to imagine the old ACLU—or really any self-respecting non-Soviet institution—scrubbing the quotations of old heroes so that they are less offensive to the militantly woke.

At least the ACLU is admitting that the RBG tweet was a mistake, though the apology Romero offered was a weak one. He also told The New York Times' Michelle Goldberg that "having spent time with Justice Ginsburg, I would like to believe that if she were alive today, she would encourage us to evolve our language to encompass a broader vision of gender, identity and sexuality." In response, Goldberg quipped: "It's also the case that she spoke specifically about women for a reason." If even the "notorious" RBG isn't woke by today's standards, progressives might need a reality check.

NEXT: Age May Trump Vaccination Status in Assessing COVID-19 Risk

ACLU Gender Twitter Social Media

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

184 responses to “ACLU Issues Weak Apology for Erasing 'Women' From RBG Abortion Quote

  1. “It was a mistake among the digital team,” says executive director Anthony Romero.

    Do 100% of all institutions in America hire BuzzFeed interns to run their “digital team”?

    1. Cheaper then illegals?

      1. Cheaper then illegals?

        And without the pesky conscience and integrity.

        1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months.KJH I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Just visit this website now.

          Open this web…… WorkJoin1

          1. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everytyybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

            So I started……… https://bit.ly/3u3ryIo

            1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FXE And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

              Try it, you won’t regret it!………………..VISIT LINK

    2. >Do 100% of all institutions in America hire BuzzFeed interns to run their “digital team”?

      We asked this question. You won’t BELIEVE what happens next!

      1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.TFx Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..

        Just visit this website now………… VISIT HERE

    3. Apparently the ‘Digital Team’ doesn’t know how to competently cut and paste.
      I hope their legal team has more reliable skills – for the sake of whatever woke cause they are pursuing

    4. Not just run their “digital teams,” but give them completely free reign to post whatever the hell they want without even the middle-est of managers laying eyes on it for thirty seconds and saying “let’s not post that.”

    5. Well, now they can join all those unemployed CBP mounted officers who are taking responsibility for Biden’s screwups at the border.

  2. “It was a mistake among the digital team,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “Changing quotes is not something we ever did.”

    A mistake is when I set my keys down in an unusual place and then can’t find them the next morning when I’m in a hurry to leave for an AM meeting. A mistake is leaving the milk out on the counter because I got distracted.

    Purposefully, and carefully changing a quote to reflect a political agenda is not a mistake. Getting caught… maybe that was a mistake.

    1. As noted slave-owner Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their [deity of choice] with certain unalienable Rights…”

      At least he calls them “they” and talks about “their” Creator….

      1. In Jefferson’s day, all the way up to the turn of millennium, the plural of people of mixed or indeterminate gender was “men”. Don’t blame Jefferson, blame the English language. One of the quirks of the language is that we do have a complete set of gender neutral personal pronouns and nouns.
        “Man” itself was originally a gender neutral pronoun. Male and female were “wer” and “wif”, where we get the words werewolf (man-wolf) and wife.

        Many other languages do not have this problem. That does not stop hyper-progressive English speakers from trying to impose their political correctness on other languages. Hence their insistence on “latinx”, which is an insult and offense to Spanish.

        That the far left progressives desire to change the language indicates that they read 1984 as a manual not as a warning. Having government or other authority in charge of the language is something they see no problem with. If a language is going to change then it needs to change on its own. Which English is currently doing. We will never get “xe” or “xhe”, but we are seeing the use of the indefinite singular pronouns “them” and “they” appearing more frequently. So languages do change, and the Right trying to stop it is as silly as the Left trying to deliberately change it.

        “Bob stole my sammich, I hope he chokes on it!” (definite singular)
        “Someone stole my sammich, I hope they choke on it!” (indefinite singular)
        “Mary stole my sammich, I hope they choke on it!” (slowly coming into use)
        “Joe stole my sammich, I hope xe chokes on it!’ (an utter abomination)

        1. “Joe stole my sammich, I hope they chokes on it!” (modern journalism)

          1. “Jose stole my sammich, and I apologized to him that I am white and therefore I put mayonnaise on it.” (modern progressivism)

            1. “Jose stole my sammich, but that is because of he lives in a food desert and lacks access to fresh, affordable, nutritious food, and I sincerely hope that he doesn’t choke on it because he will most likely die due to structural racism and inequity in our health care system which results in poor health outcomes for Latinx people.”

              – Modern White Progressive

          2. Yes, it’s modern journalism. But if that political stance changes the language, then it changes the language. The appropriate response is not a government commission in the eebils of journalism. the appropriate response is to ignore them. if enough people ignore them then the language does npt change.

            Languages change. That’s what they do. It’s why we don’t still speak Proto-Indo-European. Today a gay fellow means something far far different than a 19th century English speaker meant by a gay fellow. Anyone angry at that who insists on still using the older usage is only going to make a fool out of himself by talking about his gay fellows.

            1. Yes, languages change, slowly, over time via an organic process. Surely you see the difference between different cultures and subcultures mixing, borrowing words and inserting slang and creating Onomatopoeias, portmanteaus etc. and the painful, artificial, rammed-through legislative process we’re going through today?

        2. I’m not blaming Jefferson, I’m just showing another example where the Ministry of Truth needs to go back and edit things, like they did after Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination hearing.

          1. No one needs to edit any of what he said. We’re all capable of grasping historical context so it needn’t be sanitized by the PC police.

        3. Citing Spanish as an example of a language that doesn’t have the problem of not having gender neutral pronouns?

        4. “Hence their insistence on “latinx”, which is an insult and offense to Spanish.”

          A male latin in spanish is a Latino. A female is a Latina. The gender unspecific is Latino. These people believe that they are fighting the patterns of The Patriarchy! ™ that have ingrained themselves systematically into our culture. They fully agree with you that Spanish’s gender neutral default is the Masculine form! They believe that needs to stop in order to combat the systemic sexism inherent in our world.

          1. Caesar, Ovid et al were Latins. If the Spanish are Latins so are the French, the Italians, the Portuguese and the Romanians.

            1. Yes, those are all Latin languages. The Latins were quite open about screwing anything that moved, and loved their expansive authoritarian government, and so would be quite at home with modern progressivism. At least the later Latins. The earlier Latins should be shitting their pants if only they wore pants instead of togas.

        5. Thank you for thinking and posting my exact thoughts.

          Now, get outta my head.

      2. And as renowned starship captain James Kirk once said, “…where no man has gone before”, was going to be changed to “…where no one has gone before”, until someone pointed out that one is binary.

        1. There’s an old skit on this dating from the 80s with Picard trying to extremely inclusive of all identities.

      3. As Neil Armstrong famously said, “That’s one small step for [a person]; one giant leap for [personkind].” Chokes me up.

  3. At least the ACLU is admitting that the RBG tweet was a mistake…

    Such a ham-handed mistake is difficult to ignore. It sucked all the air out of whatever woke room the ACLU was trying to inhabit here.

  4. It’s no wonder they have no use for Chaucer or Shakespeare. Imagine the poor snowflakes trying to decipher 600 and 400 year old English!

    1. Well, Chaucer is pretty much in a different language. Shakespeare is modern English

      1. Chaucer is readable, slowly, and you have to beware of different meanings for some words. But you can get the gist of it.

  5. Real missed opportunity by the leftist trolls (the entire membership of the ACLU at this point) on this one. Should have been a tepid apology for misrepresenting Ginsburg’s “real” meaning, and a correction to [birthing people] instead of [people].

    1. humans who evacuate cell clumps from their front holes.

      1. Why bring Tony into this?

      2. “humans who evacuate cell clumps from their front holes.”

        Don’t we all, in some shape or form?

  6. You do have to love it when they ridicule themselves. Here’s to hoping they break Overton’s window.

    1. So the real question is why change the words at all? Are there that many non-women giving birth?

      1. You aren’t familiar with Life of Brian where this exact thing is discussed? 1979, 40 years ago, Monty Python already covered this. Stan decided he wanted to be a woman called Loretta and when Reg asked him why he wanted to be a woman, Stan replied that he wanted to have babies. When Reg explained to him that he couldn’t have babies (REG: But… you can’t have babies. LORETTA: Don’t you oppress me. REG: I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!) they finally agreed that, while Stan couldn’t actually have babies, he had the right to have babies.

  7. Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, presents:

    NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD QUOTATIONS

  8. rapidly evolving demands of progressive activists

    Understatement.

  9. I blame George Lucas and Steve Spielberg. Han shot first and the Feds held shotguns to stop ET!

    1. Got the Disney+ so I could watch the mindless mayhem of the Marvel movies, then discovered I could watch the first Star Wars (the real first one, not that damned Phantom Menace) anytime I wanted to. Couldn’t even get past the Mos Eisley scene…completely freaking unwatchable with all the CGI doo-dads. Thank the force I still have my original VHS’s and a VCR that still works. Gotta go, those damned kids are on my lawn again.

      1. Give up on that old fashioned M-1, and use the more modern claymores.

      2. “completely freaking unwatchable with all the CGI doo-dads.”

        We call that “George Lucas’s Crayons”

      3. vhs is your friend.

    2. Not only did Han shoot first — he was the only one who shot.

  10. “having spent time with Justice Ginsburg, I would like to believe that if she were alive today, she would encourage us to evolve our language to encompass a broader vision of gender, identity and sexuality.”

    She died like 20 fucking minutes ago. “Rapidly evolving” indeed.

    1. My favorite is the is the RBG action figure that didn’t depict in her 30s, 40s, and 50s, when she actually championed women’s rights, but in her 80s.

      It was refreshing to finally see a heroic female action figure of a figure famous for championing naps in the middle of long speeches and relaxing with a glass of pinot.

  11. Progressive thought leaders of the very, very recent past recognized fundamental differences between men and women

    Recent past starting… NOW!

    …and… NOW!

    … and NOW!

    1. “The future is certain; it is only the past that is unpredictable” – Old USSR joke

  12. progressives might need

    FFS grow a backbone

  13. it’s hard to imagine the old ACLU—or really any self-respecting non-Soviet institution

    So close to calling them out as Marxists. Keep trying, Robby, you’ll get there. Hopefully it won’t be on the train to Alaska.

    1. Probably because the ACLU isn’t Marxist.

      There’s a lot of room between your fascist beliefs and Marxism.

      I know you’ll claim you’re a libertarian. If that was true you wouldn’t tithe to a fascist church.

        1. You need a meeting. Do you have someone to drive you or get you on BART? Someone in cognitive decline like you needs an escort.

          1. And not the good kind of escort… ya know the Ford.

            1. Pathetic redneck still thinks anyone is listening to it.

              1. Thanks for using a gender neutral term seatbelt!

      1. Probably because the ACLU isn’t Marxist.

        Why do you say that? Do you not understand the history?

        AntiFa is Marxist. BLM is Marxist. The ACLU has supported both of those organizations in 1A cases while most of the organization has refused to defend any group not on the left and scathingly criticized those that do. They have also given up on the 2A.

        I see legal support for Marxists and pretty much nobody else.

        1. The ACLU have defended Neo-Nazis and Christians. While not what they used to be calling them marxists makes the word almost meaningless. I realize to you fascist Mormons anyone to the left of Mike Lee is a Marxist, but you’re wrong about this just like you’re wrong about most things. Some people associated with BLM are marxists, but there’s a wide variety of views in that movement.

          Antifa are just junkie anarchists for the most part. Or just junkie kids with nothing to do looking to play fight the rednecks.

          1. The ACLU have defended Neo-Nazis and Christians.

            Notice that you said ‘have defended’. Past tense. Are they doing so now? Because it nearly split the organization the last time someone tried. The ACLU opposes discrimination because of religion, but no longer supports the freedom to practice religion as recognized by the 1A.

            calling them marxists makes the word almost meaningless

            You are not the first to say that, but repetition will never make it true. If Marxist was meaningless, you wouldn’t react to it so strongly. Notice how I never react to ‘fascist’ or ‘Mormon’?
            Marxists actually have a published playbook against which you can compare the actions of these organizations.

            The ACLU, the SPLC, BLM and AntiFa all follow the playbook. The tools of Marxism are the means to an end: establishing an elite ruling class. Individual liberty is anathema. The ACLU clearly selective honors the 1A and has abandoned the 2A completely.

          2. According to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party platform Hitler wrote in 1920, all nazis are Christian. It spells this out in black and white with Germanic specificity. Church bells all over Germany to this day have “The Common Good before The Individual Good” and “Adolf Hitler” cast in their bronze. Search “nazi church bells” and see the real thing, plus photos of nazi church bells censored and altered by German Civic Liberty Bund wokers.

        2. Just because that PROVEN liar cunt claimed Antifa is this highly dangerous organization doesn’t mean shit. It means you’re a fool for believing that lying cunt.

          1. *liar cunt Nancy Rommelman

      2. There’s a lot of room between your fascist beliefs and Marxism.

        There is very little room between fascism and Marxism because the two ideologies are largely identical.

  14. Still doesn’t make the quote any less murderous and psychotic. RBG was the Justice Taney of the 21st century.

    1. I would say shame on you, but to be honest I celebrated when Rehnquist and Scalia croaked.

      1. Likely you only learned their names through your fascist support group, redneck.

        1. are you a cop seatbelt?

        2. If you’re a pig I hope you get shot. Mormons and their enablers should not be allowed to be pigs. Anyone who believes their nonsense or supports it should not have power over anyone
          Die piggie! Die!

          1. And then Shrike trys to pretend that conservatives are the nutbags.

            1. Seat belt is a fascist Mormon loving fuck.

              You’re a compulsive lying fascist. You’re a far right nut job.

              Keep calling me shrike you fucking weasel.

              1. His/her/it’s real family name is Straitjacket.

  15. Sometimes trying to change pronouns seems like it does more harm than good. This woman I know recently pointed me to an article about a journalist who chooses to go by “they”, and she said she thought the article came across as demeaning–like they were trying to make the journalist seem crazy.

    When you say, “They said this” or, “They wrote that” and you’re just talking about one person, this woman was saying, it makes it seem like the author was trying to imply some kind of multiple personality disorder. She would have wanted to complain about the writer demeaning the transgender journalist that way–if she didn’t know that the journalist referred to herself as “they”.

    I also wonder how this plays out in other languages. English is unusual in the way we dropped the endings on nouns and adjectives. In Romance languages, in German, in most Indo-European languages, nouns and adjectives have genders associated with them, and they change not only with the gender of the word in question but also with the gender of the person you’re talking about.

    In Latin, you don’t even need to use the world “man” or “woman” because the gender of the word implies it.

    Bonus is a good man.
    Bona is a good woman.
    Bonum is a good thing.

    If you want to change one pronoun, you also need to change the gender of all the other words around it. I think that’s probably prohibitively cumbersome! If English is especially able to accommodate pronoun changes because we dropped our endings, there may be an argument to make that using English in this was is fundamentally elitist.

    If another language doesn’t lend itself to accommodating transgendered individuals with easy modification, does that make it fundamentally less tolerant than English? Should English speakers demand that people who speak in other languages change them to be more like English in the name of tolerance? Should we insist that people with less flexible languages abandon their own language and embrace English in the name of tolerance?

    That doesn’t seem very tolerant.

    1. It makes articles unreadable. “They is recovering from cancer”. And the journalist must feel like an utter retard when they write it. And if they don’t, then “they” deserve all the criticism “they” receive.

      1. And the journalist must feel like an utter retard when they write it.

        Yeah, I dunno. I can’t count the number of times in broader writing I’ve read about a cis-male/female character getting ready to go on a date with “them” only to be not surprised/expectedly underwhelmed about the surprise reveal of “their” cis-homo/trans status.

        More often than not, the way it’s presented, you can tell the author considered themselves a master of suspense.

        1. Kinda ruins the character-building when the author pretty openly designates who’s platonic, who’s romantic, who *can* be platonic, and who *can’t* be ex cathedra.

    2. “Bonum is a good thing.”

      You can say that again.

    3. Does the gendered nature of Latin languages actually make gender a part of the context? I’ve always looked at it as arbitrary and not really reflective of any sort of gender norms.

      I think it’s reasonable to try and be gender neutral when the language can be made to fit it. I do make an effort to say “person hours” and not “man hours” But I certainly don’t take offense when someone doesn’t do that. It’s the victim part of wokeness that’s truly agitating…not the move towards more inclusive language norms.

      1. I think it’s reasonable to try and be gender neutral when the language can be made to fit it. I do make an effort to say “person hours” and not “man hours” But I certainly don’t take offense when someone doesn’t do that.

        I would hope not, because as a lover of language and its concomitant poetry and flow, ‘person hours’ feels incredibly clumsy and forced where ‘man hours’ is much smoother and doesn’t automatically invoke a gender in one’s mind when one says it.

        1. doesn’t automatically invoke a gender in one’s mind when one says it

          That’s an assumption, not a statement of fact.

          I agree that the extra syllable in Per-son makes it clumsy. But not ridiculously so. And it’s a legit word, unlike LatinX.

          There really aren’t that many words that are male/gender dominant. Chairman and Manpower are the two I come across most often. For me, “person” substitution didn’t take much to get used to. And contextually “person” works without totally corrupting the concept at hand.

          1. I remember an article some years ago–like back in the 90s– where a writer complained that an editor had screwed up one of his submitted articles.

            He had written a short personal history of his grandfather (don’t know why or what the context was) and wrote that his grandfather was a fireman aboard a ship. The editors changed it to firefighter.

            His grandfather shoveled coal and operated a steam engine boiler.

            1. “His grandfather shoveled coal and operated a steam engine boiler.”

              And he was a man.

              I appreciate that trying to change the language of 325 million people to try to make some of us feel more comfortable is absurd, but on the other side of the equation, claiming to know what other people should be called and ignoring what they call themselves is disgusting, stupid, and elitist. You’ll see this in academia with the Pennsylvania Dutch–and yes, that’s what they seem to call themselves and their language.

              Academics may say they’re wrong and their language should be called, “Pennsylvania Deutsch” or “Pennsylvania German”–but that’s not what they call themselves! And if academics refuse to call them and their language what they’ve been calling themselves since their arrival here some 400 years ago, then the academics are wrong to correct them.

            2. He’s blaming you for not making the assumption that he both makes and simultaneously asserts shouldn’t be made.

              It’s not our fault that when we say ‘man power’ the only thing that comes to his mind is swinging dicks.

          2. So what are you doing about horsepower nowadays? Oxen and mules and heck even dogs are very angry, because by-god they can pull wheeled contraptions too.

          3. That’s an assumption, not a statement of fact.

            When I say the word ‘woman’, does your brain automatically interpret that as ‘wo-male’?

            Even retards aren’t this stupid.

        2. This is what I hate about it. It tortures the language and makes it inelegant. “Inclusive language” requires four words, where one word was sufficient before.

          It also tortures the thought process, and muddies meaning and clarity. Part of the point of Woke Language is to degrade meaning and clarity, though, so it’s impossible to successfully argue against.

      2. I’ve read that there are debates about whether Romance languages, with gendered nouns and such, make the people who think in those languages see everything in terms of gender, subconsciously thinking about whether something is masculine or famine. If the word “baseball” is masculine in Spanish, does that make Spanish speakers less accepting of female athletes?

        This can be complicated by people with indigenous ancestors, who speak an indigenous language at home.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mapa_de_lenguas_de_M%C3%A9xico_%2B_100_000.png

        I’ve read that there are indigenous languages in North America with more than three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter), and that people traditionally choose a gender at their naming ceremony that is typically associated with one of four genders we might (perhaps imprecisely) associate with male, female, gay, and lesbian. Apparently, their language reflects four genders. They have four genders!

        Here’s the kicker: They have a big taboo against some of the things we think of as tolerant. Crossing sex boundaries is apparently a big no-no. If you’re of the gay gender, for instance, apparently it’s considered wrong to have sex with men. Men have sex with the female gender, but not with the gay gender. In their culture, apparently, you’re not supposed to have sex with gay men unless you chose and are in the gay gender.

        Point being, if you think having four genders will make people more tolerant, that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Gender roles seem to have ossified around the four genders harder than they have in our culture when only men and women were recognized. So, I don’t know if speaking a Romance language makes people more susceptible to gender roles, but the idea that changing our language will make people more tolerant doesn’t appear to be supported from this anyway.

        Seems to me that the most tolerant outcome is the one where people stop worrying about classifying 325 million people in terms of whether they belong to this group or that group and start worrying about treating each and every one of them as individuals. I certainly don’t think changing the language is about to make us more tolerant. Toleration comes from insisting that everyone be treated as individuals–regardless of the language we use to describe them.

        1. So basically the Native Americans were doing “pick a lane” before there were lanes.

        2. Point being, if you think having four genders will make people more tolerant, that doesn’t seem to be the case here.

          There was a time in the debate when one’s gender was falsely/selectively/disingenuously conflated with race specifically/selectively to exploit guilt and/or legal racial rectification.

        3. Um, Ken?

          Speaking of Language …

          Are Lesbians Gay?

          1. Did you miss the part about how people we would call gay men in our culture aren’t considered men–but a fourth gender that is not men–in that culture? Why would I impose my culture’s definitions on a culture that doesn’t share them when describing that culture? What are you, some kind of racist that you think everyone else’s culture should be reinterpreted in terms of your culture? That’s pathetic.

            1. Did you miss the part about how people we would call gay men in our culture aren’t considered men–but a fourth gender that is not men–in that culture?

              At one point in our own culture calling someone gay was more suggestive of their general demeanor than who they did or didn’t have sex with. Lesbians generally weren’t gay specifically because the definition ran orthogonal to sex/gender. Heterosexual women are/were generally more flippant and, while lesbians could be, aren’t. Some men even preferred women and men, sexually or not, who weren’t gay.

              Once again (again), the whole issue of 32 genders/sexes isn’t the failure of social or linguistic constructs, it’s the result of people trying to reduce the seemingly infinite dimensions of human personality to a single dimension and then insisting that we’re wrong to do so because it doesn’t fit.

              1. Some men even preferred women and men, sexually or not, who weren’t gay.

                Even now, it’s possible for an ‘anti-gay’ heterosexual couple to prefer the demeanor of the more gay individual of a homosexual male couple because the less gay individual is a judgemental authoritarian douchebag. Or so my friend and his wife who have a gay brother/BIL tell me.

        4. I’ve read that there are indigenous languages in North America with more than three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter),

          Grammatical gender are just noun classes. In some languages, nouns are classified on entirely different criteria other than biological sex.

          There are languages with more than two or three “grammatical genders”, but I’m not aware of any that behave the way you say.

          I’m not aware of any language that works the way you describe.

      3. “person hours”

        Which is ludicrous. The man in manhours is the same as the man in mankind, which is gender neutral. You are engaged in the torturing of honest discourse to accommodate a very few individuals who fallaciously claim that words not even directed at them rise to the level of personal insults.

        And it is certainly not a coincidence that the corruption of the language undermines religion. Jesus Christ was the ‘Son of Man’. It is offensive to the sincerely religious to imply his grace does not extend to everyone. As language is intended to, the context supplies to proper meaning. To change religious texts to accommodate such solipsistic nonsense would be blasphemy and yet failing to do so would make religious language even more anachronistic than it already is.

        The Pronoun War does not minimize differences and encourage tolerance the way prior movements towards inclusivity did. It is divisive, mean-spirited and causes cognitive dissonance. It is the pitiful plea of a spoiled child who has ostracized everyone on the playground and now wants the teacher to force the other kids to play with him.

        I refuse.

    4. ” In Romance languages, in German, in most Indo-European languages, nouns and adjectives have genders associated with them, and they change not only with the gender of the word in question but also with the gender of the person you’re talking about.”

      And, in some cases, the “gender” has nothing to do with the noun at all. In German, for instance, your testicles are “female,” and a woman’s breasts are “male.” Frankly, it’s the grammarians who assigned words like “male,” “female,” and “neuter,” who screwed up. They should have used different words — maybe colors?

      1. And in Latin “manliness” is female.

      2. They should have used different words — maybe colors?

        Discriminatory to the colorblind, Hitler.

      3. They should have used different words — maybe colors?

        Again, the assumption that, despite the evidence from several angles to the contrary, the problem is language and not the post modern fascists trying to destroy individual and free thought.

        Nobody’s proposing the Germans’ female testicles be disgendered, they’re proposing that man hours, in a language that has, since inception deigned ‘man’ to be gender-neutral, be disgendered.

        Big Brother doesn’t care what color you think the lights are as long as when he says there are four lights, you agree.

        I could say day, and you’d say night
        Tell me it’s black when I know that it’s white
        S’always the same, it’s just a shame, that’s all

  16. Transgender men can’t become president. Perhaps an embryo can be inserted in a body cavity, but their bodies can’t produce eggs, or sperm anymore for that matter.

    You said the constitution doesn’t define persons to exclude the unborn. I agree.

    You said the court Roe vs Wade did. I agree.

    Where we disagree is the validity of the court’s decision.

    The definition of a person for all intents and purposes is a human being.

    Our understanding of the development of a fetus has changed significantly post 1973.

    Now we observe the fetus with ultrasounds and DNA fingerprinting science demonstrates beyond any doubt that the fetus is a living human being, exploring its environment learning while in utero.

    Roe vs Wade made its decision based on ignorance.

    The courts cannot ignore the truth demonstrated by technology.

    Knowing this Roe va Wade needs to collapse.

    1. > Transgender men can’t become president.

      Why not? Have you discovered a new heretofore unknown clause in the Constitution? Please cite it for us.

        1. Possibly. Was it about pregnant presidents?

          1. His phone swapped “president” for “pregnant”. He never meant to say “president”.

            I thought his comment was more fun with the original typo.

      1. President must be at least 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.

        A natural born citizen means no trans or post humanist surgeries, no cybernetic implants or devices and must match their original birth certificate. Exactly as the founders intended when they wrote it.

        Well regulated logic is essential in reading the constitution.

        1. Unless the freaks coerce the govguns to take “sex” off birth certificates like they’re trying to do on passports.

        2. post humanist surgeries

          I would assume that means a frontal lobotomy.

    2. The definition of a person for all intents and purposes is a human being.

      So what? The Constitution does not mandate that all homicide be prosecuted and punished.

  17. Before the day I met you,
    Life was so unkind.
    You’re the key to my peace of mind.
    ‘Cause YOU MAKE ME FEEL,
    YOU MAKE ME FEEL,
    YOU MAKE ME FEEL like a natural [birthing person]…

  18. FYI, Robby, congrats on this article. I feel you hit all the right notes and didn’t pull any punches.

    1. IDK, he may not have pulled any punches but, if true, he still hits like a girl.

  19. Demands for greater sensitivity should not prompt a literal rewriting of history

    This is what you voted for, Robby–this is what you accept.

    And they’ll keep doing it. Eventually there will be none who object fast enough and they will re-write history with impunity.

    Already the placard ‘Abraham Lincoln, Democrat’ adorns a university and we are told that ‘conservative’ southerners were behind the civil war and Jim Crow.

    And one day, it will become impossible to even think the term ‘liberty’ save in a very strict and limited sense as dictated by the State.

  20. I would have hoped that Robby, of all people, would have been sensitive enough to use the term “the w- word” instead of the actual word. I am disappointed that this magazine’s standards have slipped so low as to use such triggering and vile language as this.

    1. “Bodies with vaginas” is the latest term they use.

  21. You know, I find this quote interesting because by itself, without context, it technically says nothing about abortion.

    1. I mean, like anyone who’s not utterly psychotic has ever suggested a woman doesn’t have a right to choose whether or not to get pregnant and have a family.

    2. Ginsburg’s thinking around abortion was that legal abortion was justified because it rectified the inherent biological imbalance of the mother’s and father’s roles in reproduction. The mother has physical possession of the child and the father has the physical ability to not honor his obligations despite not having the legal right to do so. Her view had an internal consistency that came to an insane conclusion.

      1. They want to have their cake and eat it too. The father has no say over abortion yet is responsible for child support. The juxtaposition of those two factors is beyond hypocritical. At least Texas has given the Father the right to sue the mother, which is a step in the right direction to restore balance, but the idea of gender equality in itself is asinine because of the fact that man and women are not created equal. There are male villages and female privileges. There always will be in any society due to biological differences.

        1. Who is “they”? There are quite a lot of different points of view on the issue and a lot of people who aren’t progressives who favor legal abortion.

          1. Libertarians, for instance. It was in all original LP platforms before mystical T-Party encroachment and pollution.

            1. The position “the federal government mandates that abortion be legal everywhere” is as illiberal as “the federal government mandates that abortion be illegal everywhere”.

        2. At least Texas has given the Father the right to sue the mother

          The Immaculate Recitation

  22. A transgender man can be said to capable of giving birth because such a person is of the female sex. However, such occurances are rare. It is absurd for progressives to demand our culture change the meanings of rather basic words to be inclusive of tiny minorities which results in muddling communication of ideas. It makes talking about certain areas of life clearly impossible.

    Tell the progressives to go pound sand.

    1. For humans, if a body produces a child, it is a female body.
      Deal with it.

    2. The problem is the deliberate perversion of language by “political science”. In biology, the definition of gender is and always has been the identifier for one of two sexes, male and female. The terms gender and sex are inseparable. Whenever confronted with a discrepancy between political science and other sciences, its best to go with the others. Political science is pseudoscience by the very definition of science.

      1. To elaborate on that, the ultimate test of a legitimate scientific theory is falsifiability. Most theories in political science are unfalsifiable, therefore not scientific theories at all, but conspiracy theories.

    3. t is absurd for progressives to demand our culture change the meanings of rather basic words to be inclusive of tiny minorities which results in muddling communication of ideas.

      This is the the whole thing for me. Changing definitions and demanding everyone else adhere to your new definitions tells me that clear communication is not your goal.

      1. It’s almost like a big experiment to prove the postmodernist take on language and meaning. And I think it could succeed. Post modernism gets a lot of that kind of thing right in a way. But the problem is: then what the fuck do you do? Structures of langiage and meaning are imperfect, but we manage to do pretty well when we act like words actually mean something.

        1. Post modernism gets a lot of that kind of thing right in a way. But the problem is: then what the fuck do you do?

          I’ve said this a long time about progressivism: “Not better, just different.” This post modernism is more of the same, it correctly identifies errors but doesn’t provide solutions or provides solutions that create the same or more problems. It’s specifically the problem we see here. There may be a case that we shouldn’t say workman but there’s no real non-authoritarian reason why we should obscure reproductive partners from each other or themselves and plenty of reasonable functional reasons why we shouldn’t.

    4. And if we want to define “woman”, I have to say that “people capable of giving birth” is a lot closer to what almost everyone thinks it means than “whoever thinks they feel like a woman” ( and the “thinks” is really important there because no one who isn’t in fact a biological female has any idea what it really feels like to be one).

      1. Yet no shortage of creeps want other, less cowardly men to pick up service pistols and use them to threaten doctors and coerce individual women into involuntary labor. Trumpistas with their Fuehrerprinzip fanaticism appear torn between returning to 1873 Comstockism and 1933 German National Socialism. Individual rights aren’t even on their table anymore.

    5. A transgender man can be said to capable of giving birth because such a person is of the female sex.

      The number of transgender men who’ve given birth without a member of the opposite sex is still 0.

    6. A transgender man can be said to capable of giving birth

      It would make sense that before they turn the vagina inside out that they perform a hysterectomy. I have no idea and am not going to do that search.

  23. I’m not in one of the select demographic groups protected by the racist, sexist ACLU cult, so I could care less if they cease to exist tomorrow. The only civil rights organization I would ever support is one that fights for the rights of all, regardless of gender or race. The only one I know of is the NRA.

  24. The real thing to learn here was the depths of hatred in the heart of the transphobic bigot RBG. She needs to be posthumously cancelled and all her works invalidated for true social justice to ever be achieved.

    1. The racist, heterophobic ACLU needs to be cancelled as well.

  25. Why are people so concerned what a hypocritical loser institution like the ACLU cares about a dead, deadbeat corrupt judge like RBG thinks. Good riddance RBG, good riddance ACLU.

  26. All these years, women have been able to sue men for pregnancy (child support) and now that in the state of Texas men can sue women for abortion, there is a public outcry. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

    1. Texas men cannot sue the women, they can sue their doctors or other people helping them. That is absurd. Also, women can sue men for money to feed and clothe the child, what exactly do men whose “child” was aborted need the money for? As a compensation of emotional harm? On a personal level, I understand there can be feelings of loss. But legally, there is no right to demand someone else serves as an incubator for a child you want for yourself (assuming that these men would even want to raise the child by themselves, with only financial involvement of the mothers – some would, others wouldn´t, but still feel entitled to object to the woman´s abortion).

      1. But legally, there is no right to demand someone else serves as an incubator for a child you want for yourself

        If the woman consented to sex, she consented to serving as an incubator for a common child. That’s the way sex works in humans.

  27. “Four score and seven years ago our [parents] brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all [persons of all sexes, and hermaphrodites] are created equal.

    “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great [racketball court] of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that [court], as a [] resting place for those who here [played so hard] that that nation might [be awesom]. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

    “But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not [set aside for the Earth Mother] — we can not [make a sacred space out of] — this ground. The brave [persons of all sexes, and hermaphrodites], living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the [temporarily abled], rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who [played] here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored [people] we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these [persons] shall not have [played racketball] in vain — that this nation, under [spirituality], shall have a new birth of [wokeness] — and that government of the people…shall not perish from the earth.”

  28. The end of every day is the perfect time to let your imagination run wild and declare yourself to that special someone. A simple goodnight message can bring a smile, but a very passionate and romantic phrase is even better!
    https://bit.ly/2Wmynso

  29. That was no mistake, it was done purposefully by left wing proto fascists who want to shame you into their perverted way of thinking.

  30. Demands for greater sensitivity should not prompt a literal rewriting of history.

    I think you mean “demands for adherence to newspeak”

  31. I am [body with vagina] hear me roar…

    1. Do manginas count?

    2. Woman = man with womb. A vagina is not a womb.

      1. Yeah, but a womb isn’t much use without one.

        1. Neither is a woman.

          *BAM*

          I am here all ze veek!

  32. “American [menstruating person], stay away from meehee…”

  33. >>”It was a mistake among the digital team,” says executive director Anthony Romero.

    “It was a mistake, and I am Executive Director.”

    1. Its also a mistake to rob a bank.

      1. if you do it right everyone wins.

    2. I’d accept “the digital team was a mistake”

  34. I’ve cheerfully joined in the mockery here, but the joke is on us.

    Next time they won’t apologize.

    Indeed, next time they won’t use brackets, they’ll pretend that the new words were in the original quote.

    And we’ll be too busy digging the equivalent of the Grand Siberian Canal to complain.

  35. Obama’s daughter introduced a that can help many people financially. If you want to earn extra income every msite onth … look no further! This is a great opportunity for anyone to earn from home. you can work online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that I personally couldn’t accept it as true before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. go to the home tab section for more details.http://www.suntrustjob.com

  36. “Regardless of one’s position on trans issues and the rapidly evolving demands of progressive activists with respect to conscious language choices, it is wrong to go back in time and pretend that people used different words.”

    No. No. No. Making a minor change to a quote is not more important than making the reality of womanhood disappear. What is WRONG is to pretend that men have babies, or that women as a group do not exist. Womanhood is not a club you can join, and no amount of delusion can change that fact. So no, there is no ‘regardless’ here.

    1. What better way to resume girl-bullying than to recast female individuals as “non-artificial”? FDR’s shutdown of all banks–and criminalization of gold ownership after the Herbert Hoover crashes–punished corporations differently from disobedient individuals by recasting them as “artificial persons.” Surely your government school history books included that exact quote, right?

  37. saddest part of all this is women didn’t step up and say fuck off no you are not women.

    1. Kind of amazing more haven’t picked up on how awful this stuff is for women. Especially with the athletics stuff.

      1. Quite a few have, actually. You just gotta run in the right circles.

        1. Also worth repeating the point that you frequently make that, unlike men, women tend to avoid direct confrontation and prefer, instead, to manipulate the situation socially.

  38. “Progressive thought leaders of the very, very recent past recognized fundamental differences between men and women—it’s absurd to pretend otherwise, and to obscure this fact by changing the speech they used.”

    PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT LEADERS.

    Now, THERE’S an Oxymoron for ya …

    1. They’re being replaced by people who identify at progressive thought leaders.

  39. “…it is wrong to go back in time and pretend that people used different words.”

    Of course, _not_ doing that on Twitter might get you kicked off.

  40. What a farce of an organization the ACLU is! Civil Liberties are enshrined our Bill of Rights yet they are hostile to the 1st and 2nd Amendments, the two most important! Their name is an oxymoron, they should be the Anti-Civil Liberties Union, then at least their can keep the catchy acronym. I regret so much ever giving money to that organization.

    1. The ACLU has been compromised and changed, just like the two parties now comprising The Kleptocracy have changed. Nixon’s 1971 anti-libertarian campaign bribery law has proven itself a pernicious influence indeed.

  41. Damn that is a totally wrong thing to do with the people right I agree with TimK am also going abroad so I am studying IELTS from here Best IELTS Coaching Center In Chandigarh they have the best teaching system and I really love their institute.

  42. Wait til they go after Aretha Franklin: “You make me feel like a natural [person]”.
    Or is a “natural woman” one of those “birthing persons”?

    “The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a [birthing person]’s life, to a [birthing person]’s well-being and dignity. It is a decision the [birthing person] must make for the [birthing person’s ]self.” — Ruth Bader Ginsberg [fully corrected]

    “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. … Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. …” — George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

    In the meantime, we have the Thought Police on patrol.

  43. This is exactly what Orwell observed before and during WW2. Newspeak was science fiction by a linguist who’d seen the de-individualizing of Asians by Empire, and the German altruist attempt to wipe out individualism as a Jewish heritable trait. Language-lobotomizing ideologues turning the ACLU into collectivist tools is bad enough. But planting a Republican national socialist brainwashee to replace our individual rights jurist and resurrect Positive Christianity’s eugenic manipulation is a bit much.

  44. Sorry, but the very same extremist view of personal autonomy that led to mass abortion also leads straight to the pronoun police. You can’t get on the train and then complain that you eventually pull into the next station.

    How *else* could a man become a “woman” just because he feels like it? That kinda thing has to be *enforced*.

  45. The remnants of a once great organization… so sad…

  46. Don’t you know what brackets are? There was no misquote. I thought I’d see a misquote. But you’re sure on the case, libertarians. Wouldn’t want tweeters practicing freedom in a way you disapprove of.

    Anyway, like so many other things going on right now, this is a transition phase. In the future, neither women nor FTM transgender people will give birth, as that messy business will be left to technological incubators, as God intended.

    Pronouns will continue to be a non-issue, since you can’t very well misgender someone to their face (since you’ll be using their name or “you” as anyone who learned manners knows).

    And there will be no straight and gay or trans. There will be genderless persons, free of cultural anxieties, fucking whichever warm holes that will have them.

    Frankly the real dilemma is what to do with formal wear.