I need to defend the majority in WI here. The state has NOT embraced these changes. In fact, the outrage has been palpable. It is language that 1 or more woke nutters in the governor's administration put into the governor's budget submission, which the governor himself likely didn't read. It is not law and will not become law. Our legislature has a Republican majority in both houses. Sanity will absolutely prevail in this.
I believe legislation was recently introduced in Wisconsin on the topic of keeping our standard words. Very sickening how women are treated by those who wrote this document!
Unfortunately as a 31 yr old Madisonion, I am living in a very different world than the one you are explaining. My generation is willing to die on the hill of sex denialism. You’re hard pressed to find a job in Madison that won’t require pronouns and forced speech.
Every healthcare clinic/hospital in Madison has trans flags and use the most degrading language to women. One nonsensical example: I was on a medication that would cause birth defects if I became pregnant. I had to sign a waver and come in each month to for a urine sample. I only had to do this because I am, in fact a woman lol yet the whole time my doctor says “birthing people” In the bathroom the instructions for women were labeled “bodies with vaginas”. I can go to a gynecology appointment and not hear the word woman or female once. It is also impossible to find a therapist here that doesn’t use 5 pronouns or shame you for being “transphobic” because you are terrified of men-no matter what they “identify” as because of being sexually assaulted. And if you are a woman who wants to talk about being sexually assaulted or sex based health issues- you’re a biological essentialist TERF.
I quit my job here after forced speech and being asked to no longer say the word woman.
I am sincerely glad that you see hope. I am thankful to hear another person from WI. But from where I’m sitting, my generation and the younger generations are completely captured.
The irony of these people thinking they are anti capitalist individuals, when purchasing your “authentic” self is the epitome of capitalism.
Yeah, there's a big difference in language guidance for government use and actual language.(as you say proposed by a handful of people)
Just like you can't just make up pronouns and force them into the language, you also can't remove basic words like "mother" and "father". That's not how language works.
It’s refreshing to watch an older TV series filmed prior to “wokeness,” where the main character is influenced and inspired by his father, a POW who never returned but left an enduring mark on his boy. If fathers (or mothers for that matter), were truly inconsequential, then characters who lost parents at a young age would not suffer and yearn. Entire novels wouldn’t have been written. I guess that means a bunch of books are going to be banned soon too. I lost my father at 18, also military, and I’ve never stopped missing him. So there.
Want to get rid of a word and shove it down Orwell’s memory hole? Remove it from the iPhone and Android dictionary and so whenever it is typed it's considered misspelled or provide contextual alternatives in autocorrect. Within 1 year it will be far less used. Within ten it’s very existence will be hanging in the balance (as Orwell taught—by destroying words you limit thought which is the purpose of spellcheck [not only do we gradually lose our ability to spell, our ability to express ourselves and dynamically think atrophies as words stealthily disappear from our collective vocabulary).
Conversely, want to convince the world someone is racist see concordant brainwashing video below here, where when the word "racist" is said into text-to-speech, Trump's name appears: https://substack.com/@tritorch/note/c-96260168
I told my older teenagers that the university system thinks they ought to start referring to me as their "inseminated person." They pointed out that one doesn't have to be a mother to be an inseminated person. Or even a woman. The term is not only crude and disrespectful, but also very imprecise.
I think most sane Americans will not fall for changing language in their lives no matter what the radicals come up with. They’ve learned it’s just ridiculous. I’m surprised it’s still happening. It is a low point that occurred as so many others did during the fake dementia Biden presidency. A complete fraud in America. No matter what Wisconsin tries to do, I’ll just ignore it.
i agree wholeheartedly, but would like to clarify (if anyone knows the answer), was the slide intended in the context of surrogacy? b/c that’s what i was told RE the use of “inseminated person” to indicate the surrogate. was that a load of bull?
Brook, maybe this is in the context of acclimating/mandating/manipulating the public to the new, improved and renamed concept of mother - the inseminated person - to conform with the trans agenda where anyone can be anything as long as they can mandate the labeling. (Maybe you can think through this and share, as I am a simple person and do not understand these things, thankfully.). Help me . . .
I had the same thought. So generations of mothers and fathers (and the vast majority of Americans living today) are to be cowed by a minute fraction of the populace? Nope.
The most egregious changes proposed (not enacted!) are to an IVF statute. If the goal was to make the language independent of marital status, man/woman would have sufficed. Some rogue nutjobs in the governor's admin put (snuck) a bunch of gender neutral language into a proposed budget bill, I guess hoping nobody would notice or care. There is a 0% chance this will become law. Our legislature is majority R in both chambers. If anything, it will be used against the Dems as they will have to go on record supporting the language.
As a Wisconsinite, I throw up a little bit in my mouth everytime I hear "inseminated person." The word Mother has such a broad, loving, encompassing meaning full of life teachings, modeling and tenderness. Gov Ever's term completely limits a woman to a "sexualized vessel" and nothing more. This is one of the most disgusting proposals to come out of our state ever! I hope he finds a sane brain cell and reconsiders. I know our Senate and Assembly won't stand for this garbage, but in Wisconsin, the Governer has line item veto rights and he will re-insert his insane language :(
I agree, it is despicable what is happening with correct, historical words! Vague names for important roles. Please note I live in Wisconsin, we do not all agree with what is happening. It is difficult to fight the socialist and woke trends of depersonalization in speech and literature. I will continue to use the old verbiage, and I believe most people will too!
These are budget recommendations? Apparently in Wisconsin the word previously used: dictionary, is changed to: budget. Nevertheless, when in Wisconsin I will remember to refer to my mother, who died 26 years ago at age 85, as my "inseminated person." And I can't wait to attend a wedding there so I can hear the preacher say "I now pronounce you spouse and spouse."
I think someone is pulling our leg. Or is it April 1st already?
I would think a child being asked "Who is your inseminated person?" is as clear a sign as any that the world we have been marching toward is anti-human.
"Of course, one can hardly object to rational methods of enquiry, or to the demand for the same standards of rationality in linguistics as in the "hard" sciences. And yet, to assume in advance that linguistic facts are biological facts is hardly in keeping with the finest standards of terrestrial thought"
...
"The Marxist tradition too has characteristically held that humans are products of history and society, not determined by their biological nature; of course this is not true of physical properties, such as the possession of arms rather than wings ... but it is held to be true of intellectual, social, and general cultural life"
...
"In more traditional philosophical language, the argument has to do with the problem of induction (sometimes referred to by Chomsky as "Plato's problem"). The same argument in relation to children's learning of words is used to support a belief in the innateness of all concepts."
...
"The biological determinist idiom in which his ideas are couched is suggestive of what would be called "mechanical" or "vulgar" materialism within the Marxist tradition. Its materialism lies in the acceptance of the existence of a mind-independent material reality, its vulgarity in the simple reduction of the mental to the material (the biological)."
...
"If one accepts that all concepts - including those of "brain", "mind", "reality", "person", "world", etc - are forced on our thinking by the brain, whatever the world itself is actually like, then there are quite simply no grounds for claiming either that one's ideas about the world and the world itself actually correspond, or indeed that there is a real world outside the brain at all."
...
"Chomsky refers to his own conception as a kind of libertarian socialism, with its roots in the liberalism which he claims developed from certain, notably Cartesian, trends of Enlightenment thinking. Cartesian rationalism, with its belief in innate reason and in the creativity and freedom of human thinking is counterposed to an "empiricist" picture of people as "completely malleable and lacking in characteristics" which he claims is used to justify techniques of manipulation and control of the masses by "ideological managers". Chomsky claims to find a "modest conceptual barrier against racism in his approach He also claims to detect historical changes, even advances, in moral consciousness in relation to attitudes towards slavery, or the place of women in society, for example, changes he attributes to "an advance towards understanding of our own nature and the moral and ethical principles that derive from it"
...
"they argue that biological determinism continues and feeds "a philosophical tradition of individualism, with its emphasis on the priority of the individual over the collective, a tradition appropriated by the 'New Right' eager to place the causes of social inequality, crime, 'immorality' and poverty within the individual and individual psychology and not in society which, perhaps, does not have its own determining influence on human behaviour""
...
"Nevertheless her arguments point to the fundamental contradictions within biological determinist accounts of moral and political structures. She notes that some sociobiologists accept that "an adherence to social norms ... can modify or even contain the operation" of the causal, biological mechanism"
...
"Chomsky has the same problem: if it is the case that our behaviour and beliefs, including our basic moral judgements, are biologically fixed, then we could hardly rid ourselves of oppressive social and political institutions by mere political debate or action, and the idea that our present attitudes and behaviour are at odds with our biologically determined nature surely contradicts the basic premisses on which the whole argument is built. The result of such attempts to marry biological causation with conscious modification of behaviour is an implausible dualism typical of biological determinism both in modern form and in earlier, 18th and 19th century versions. From the Marxist point of view, of course, the main issue is not the particular ideological form in which those in power seek to justify their exploitation and manipulation of others (one can surely find "rationaiist" as well as "empiricist" dictatorships). The issue is: how do social formations arise? How can we explain the origin, development and supersession of social structures? If there are chains of cause and effect at the societal level, at the level of relations and interactions between people, which are irreducible to individual mental or behavioural properties, and which are responsible for the shaping and structuring of societies, then the determining forces in socio-historical evolution are these social processes and not "human nature" in the sense of inborn qualities."
...
"4. LANGUAGE AND THE MARXIST TRADITION
4.1 The discussion so far demonstrates that the problem of giving a scientific account of language and its structure is inextricably wedded to other scientific, methodological and philosophical problems, notably the problem of induction, the relationship of the socio-cultural to the biological, of the individual to the social, and of the material to the mental."
...
"Thus, all ideal forms including language, are seen primarily as a property and product of the life-process of the whole community, and the essence of humanity located not in the individual person, still less the physical constitution of that person, but in "the ensemble of the social relations""
...
"this is because human knowledge does not derive solely or mainly from observation or contemplation of the natural world. Rather, it is "precisely the alteration of nature by men, not solely nature as such, which is the most essential and immediate basis of human thought, and it is in the measure that man has learned to change nature that his intelligence has increased""
...
"Shaped in the whole life history of the community as an instrument of communicative mediation of practical activity and a form of generalising thought -"the social means of thought" - language interpenetrates with the "natural" psychological and biological processes present in the new-born child leading to the formation of "verbal thought" which "is not an innate
...
"Is Marxism necessarily incompatible with this view of a biologically determined language faculty? I believe it is, not least because Marxism requires, as a general methodological or philosophical assumption, a relationship and dependency between the categories of form and content at odds with Newmeyer's conception. From the Marxist point of view Newmeyer assumes metaphysical dualism of form and content on a par with the Cartesian dualism of mind and body: on the one hand pure forms, entirely free of any meaning or content, and, on the other, meaning so pure that it is entirely devoid of any hint of form or structure. How would such substances meet and interact? How and why could the brain, let us say, recognise such empty formal structures as having anything to do with language at all? What, indeed, makes them forms of language? The alleged autonomy of grammar, therefore, is based on a distinctly dubious methodology and ontology. Furthermore, in the grammatical theory defended by Newmeyer there is actually no such clear-cut separation of formal and semantic dimensions. Principles of Universal Grammar are invoked in relation to such semantic relations as "agency" and to the referential properties of names and pronouns.", natural form of behaviour but is determined by a historical-cultural process"
They just double and triple down on the nefarious agenda, but this is also idiotic and only a passive and ignorant populace will allow this to stand even in the face of an ideologically captured and compromised judiciary. Either this doesn't hold water or it gets torn apart soon enough. Aside from the abomination with regard to changing Mother, I find this rather surprising change from paternity to patronage the most disturbing. This makes clear the move not only to strip away the entire notion of family and depersonalize familial connections, but it indicates an intent that privileges institutions and really appears to be a move back towards a monarchical model in which the "inseminated person" or "person" is merely an object of the state and subjugated to it as the highest authority. Really disgusting that this is being attempted, but again, if the mothers and fathers and citizens don't come together and rip this apart it is on them.
I need to defend the majority in WI here. The state has NOT embraced these changes. In fact, the outrage has been palpable. It is language that 1 or more woke nutters in the governor's administration put into the governor's budget submission, which the governor himself likely didn't read. It is not law and will not become law. Our legislature has a Republican majority in both houses. Sanity will absolutely prevail in this.
i sure hope so...
I believe legislation was recently introduced in Wisconsin on the topic of keeping our standard words. Very sickening how women are treated by those who wrote this document!
It makes me hopeful to hear your perspective.
Unfortunately as a 31 yr old Madisonion, I am living in a very different world than the one you are explaining. My generation is willing to die on the hill of sex denialism. You’re hard pressed to find a job in Madison that won’t require pronouns and forced speech.
Every healthcare clinic/hospital in Madison has trans flags and use the most degrading language to women. One nonsensical example: I was on a medication that would cause birth defects if I became pregnant. I had to sign a waver and come in each month to for a urine sample. I only had to do this because I am, in fact a woman lol yet the whole time my doctor says “birthing people” In the bathroom the instructions for women were labeled “bodies with vaginas”. I can go to a gynecology appointment and not hear the word woman or female once. It is also impossible to find a therapist here that doesn’t use 5 pronouns or shame you for being “transphobic” because you are terrified of men-no matter what they “identify” as because of being sexually assaulted. And if you are a woman who wants to talk about being sexually assaulted or sex based health issues- you’re a biological essentialist TERF.
I quit my job here after forced speech and being asked to no longer say the word woman.
I am sincerely glad that you see hope. I am thankful to hear another person from WI. But from where I’m sitting, my generation and the younger generations are completely captured.
The irony of these people thinking they are anti capitalist individuals, when purchasing your “authentic” self is the epitome of capitalism.
Ope, bit of a novel there.
I was going to say - I live in Wisconsin and I’ve never heard of this!
Yeah, there's a big difference in language guidance for government use and actual language.(as you say proposed by a handful of people)
Just like you can't just make up pronouns and force them into the language, you also can't remove basic words like "mother" and "father". That's not how language works.
Yes, to paraphrase Orwell, first corrupt the language, and what follows naturally is the corruption of thought processes.
I guess changing Father to the inseminator sounded to strong .
It shows the biases and mentality of those writing these changes. They’re not even able to treat women and men equally in their harmful language.
Too,missed an o
It’s refreshing to watch an older TV series filmed prior to “wokeness,” where the main character is influenced and inspired by his father, a POW who never returned but left an enduring mark on his boy. If fathers (or mothers for that matter), were truly inconsequential, then characters who lost parents at a young age would not suffer and yearn. Entire novels wouldn’t have been written. I guess that means a bunch of books are going to be banned soon too. I lost my father at 18, also military, and I’ve never stopped missing him. So there.
Want to get rid of a word and shove it down Orwell’s memory hole? Remove it from the iPhone and Android dictionary and so whenever it is typed it's considered misspelled or provide contextual alternatives in autocorrect. Within 1 year it will be far less used. Within ten it’s very existence will be hanging in the balance (as Orwell taught—by destroying words you limit thought which is the purpose of spellcheck [not only do we gradually lose our ability to spell, our ability to express ourselves and dynamically think atrophies as words stealthily disappear from our collective vocabulary).
Conversely, want to convince the world someone is racist see concordant brainwashing video below here, where when the word "racist" is said into text-to-speech, Trump's name appears: https://substack.com/@tritorch/note/c-96260168
I told my older teenagers that the university system thinks they ought to start referring to me as their "inseminated person." They pointed out that one doesn't have to be a mother to be an inseminated person. Or even a woman. The term is not only crude and disrespectful, but also very imprecise.
Bravo. Commend your children for stating facts.
I think most sane Americans will not fall for changing language in their lives no matter what the radicals come up with. They’ve learned it’s just ridiculous. I’m surprised it’s still happening. It is a low point that occurred as so many others did during the fake dementia Biden presidency. A complete fraud in America. No matter what Wisconsin tries to do, I’ll just ignore it.
i agree wholeheartedly, but would like to clarify (if anyone knows the answer), was the slide intended in the context of surrogacy? b/c that’s what i was told RE the use of “inseminated person” to indicate the surrogate. was that a load of bull?
also, we need to think long and hard about surrogacy in terms of commoditizing women’s bodies and childrens’ lives.
Brook, maybe this is in the context of acclimating/mandating/manipulating the public to the new, improved and renamed concept of mother - the inseminated person - to conform with the trans agenda where anyone can be anything as long as they can mandate the labeling. (Maybe you can think through this and share, as I am a simple person and do not understand these things, thankfully.). Help me . . .
I had the same thought. So generations of mothers and fathers (and the vast majority of Americans living today) are to be cowed by a minute fraction of the populace? Nope.
The most egregious changes proposed (not enacted!) are to an IVF statute. If the goal was to make the language independent of marital status, man/woman would have sufficed. Some rogue nutjobs in the governor's admin put (snuck) a bunch of gender neutral language into a proposed budget bill, I guess hoping nobody would notice or care. There is a 0% chance this will become law. Our legislature is majority R in both chambers. If anything, it will be used against the Dems as they will have to go on record supporting the language.
yeah, dems are really good at shooting themselves in both feet 😝
Quick question: what is your source for these language recommendations in Wisconsin?
Good question. Leery as I am of so-called "fact checking", this article goes into quite a bit of detail and provides sources. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2025/02/fact-check-wisconsin-bill-proposes-gender-inclusive-language-but-does-not-replace-mother-with-inseminated-person-in-all-contexts.html
As a Wisconsinite, I throw up a little bit in my mouth everytime I hear "inseminated person." The word Mother has such a broad, loving, encompassing meaning full of life teachings, modeling and tenderness. Gov Ever's term completely limits a woman to a "sexualized vessel" and nothing more. This is one of the most disgusting proposals to come out of our state ever! I hope he finds a sane brain cell and reconsiders. I know our Senate and Assembly won't stand for this garbage, but in Wisconsin, the Governer has line item veto rights and he will re-insert his insane language :(
I agree, it is despicable what is happening with correct, historical words! Vague names for important roles. Please note I live in Wisconsin, we do not all agree with what is happening. It is difficult to fight the socialist and woke trends of depersonalization in speech and literature. I will continue to use the old verbiage, and I believe most people will too!
These are budget recommendations? Apparently in Wisconsin the word previously used: dictionary, is changed to: budget. Nevertheless, when in Wisconsin I will remember to refer to my mother, who died 26 years ago at age 85, as my "inseminated person." And I can't wait to attend a wedding there so I can hear the preacher say "I now pronounce you spouse and spouse."
I think someone is pulling our leg. Or is it April 1st already?
Yes, it is a proposed budget bill. It has 0 chance of being adopted, either the gender part or the budget part.
If they truly insist on "inseminated persons", then Mother's day has to be abolished. Try that & see what happens...
I would think a child being asked "Who is your inseminated person?" is as clear a sign as any that the world we have been marching toward is anti-human.
Marxists only know how to destroy. Language is one of their main weapons of mass destruction:
Biological Determinism and Epistemology in Linguistics:
Some Considerations on the "Chomskyan Revolution"
https://www.marxists.org/subject/psychology/works/jones/biology.htm
"Of course, one can hardly object to rational methods of enquiry, or to the demand for the same standards of rationality in linguistics as in the "hard" sciences. And yet, to assume in advance that linguistic facts are biological facts is hardly in keeping with the finest standards of terrestrial thought"
...
"The Marxist tradition too has characteristically held that humans are products of history and society, not determined by their biological nature; of course this is not true of physical properties, such as the possession of arms rather than wings ... but it is held to be true of intellectual, social, and general cultural life"
...
"In more traditional philosophical language, the argument has to do with the problem of induction (sometimes referred to by Chomsky as "Plato's problem"). The same argument in relation to children's learning of words is used to support a belief in the innateness of all concepts."
...
"The biological determinist idiom in which his ideas are couched is suggestive of what would be called "mechanical" or "vulgar" materialism within the Marxist tradition. Its materialism lies in the acceptance of the existence of a mind-independent material reality, its vulgarity in the simple reduction of the mental to the material (the biological)."
...
"If one accepts that all concepts - including those of "brain", "mind", "reality", "person", "world", etc - are forced on our thinking by the brain, whatever the world itself is actually like, then there are quite simply no grounds for claiming either that one's ideas about the world and the world itself actually correspond, or indeed that there is a real world outside the brain at all."
...
"Chomsky refers to his own conception as a kind of libertarian socialism, with its roots in the liberalism which he claims developed from certain, notably Cartesian, trends of Enlightenment thinking. Cartesian rationalism, with its belief in innate reason and in the creativity and freedom of human thinking is counterposed to an "empiricist" picture of people as "completely malleable and lacking in characteristics" which he claims is used to justify techniques of manipulation and control of the masses by "ideological managers". Chomsky claims to find a "modest conceptual barrier against racism in his approach He also claims to detect historical changes, even advances, in moral consciousness in relation to attitudes towards slavery, or the place of women in society, for example, changes he attributes to "an advance towards understanding of our own nature and the moral and ethical principles that derive from it"
...
"they argue that biological determinism continues and feeds "a philosophical tradition of individualism, with its emphasis on the priority of the individual over the collective, a tradition appropriated by the 'New Right' eager to place the causes of social inequality, crime, 'immorality' and poverty within the individual and individual psychology and not in society which, perhaps, does not have its own determining influence on human behaviour""
...
"Nevertheless her arguments point to the fundamental contradictions within biological determinist accounts of moral and political structures. She notes that some sociobiologists accept that "an adherence to social norms ... can modify or even contain the operation" of the causal, biological mechanism"
...
"Chomsky has the same problem: if it is the case that our behaviour and beliefs, including our basic moral judgements, are biologically fixed, then we could hardly rid ourselves of oppressive social and political institutions by mere political debate or action, and the idea that our present attitudes and behaviour are at odds with our biologically determined nature surely contradicts the basic premisses on which the whole argument is built. The result of such attempts to marry biological causation with conscious modification of behaviour is an implausible dualism typical of biological determinism both in modern form and in earlier, 18th and 19th century versions. From the Marxist point of view, of course, the main issue is not the particular ideological form in which those in power seek to justify their exploitation and manipulation of others (one can surely find "rationaiist" as well as "empiricist" dictatorships). The issue is: how do social formations arise? How can we explain the origin, development and supersession of social structures? If there are chains of cause and effect at the societal level, at the level of relations and interactions between people, which are irreducible to individual mental or behavioural properties, and which are responsible for the shaping and structuring of societies, then the determining forces in socio-historical evolution are these social processes and not "human nature" in the sense of inborn qualities."
...
"4. LANGUAGE AND THE MARXIST TRADITION
4.1 The discussion so far demonstrates that the problem of giving a scientific account of language and its structure is inextricably wedded to other scientific, methodological and philosophical problems, notably the problem of induction, the relationship of the socio-cultural to the biological, of the individual to the social, and of the material to the mental."
...
"Thus, all ideal forms including language, are seen primarily as a property and product of the life-process of the whole community, and the essence of humanity located not in the individual person, still less the physical constitution of that person, but in "the ensemble of the social relations""
...
"this is because human knowledge does not derive solely or mainly from observation or contemplation of the natural world. Rather, it is "precisely the alteration of nature by men, not solely nature as such, which is the most essential and immediate basis of human thought, and it is in the measure that man has learned to change nature that his intelligence has increased""
...
"Shaped in the whole life history of the community as an instrument of communicative mediation of practical activity and a form of generalising thought -"the social means of thought" - language interpenetrates with the "natural" psychological and biological processes present in the new-born child leading to the formation of "verbal thought" which "is not an innate
...
"Is Marxism necessarily incompatible with this view of a biologically determined language faculty? I believe it is, not least because Marxism requires, as a general methodological or philosophical assumption, a relationship and dependency between the categories of form and content at odds with Newmeyer's conception. From the Marxist point of view Newmeyer assumes metaphysical dualism of form and content on a par with the Cartesian dualism of mind and body: on the one hand pure forms, entirely free of any meaning or content, and, on the other, meaning so pure that it is entirely devoid of any hint of form or structure. How would such substances meet and interact? How and why could the brain, let us say, recognise such empty formal structures as having anything to do with language at all? What, indeed, makes them forms of language? The alleged autonomy of grammar, therefore, is based on a distinctly dubious methodology and ontology. Furthermore, in the grammatical theory defended by Newmeyer there is actually no such clear-cut separation of formal and semantic dimensions. Principles of Universal Grammar are invoked in relation to such semantic relations as "agency" and to the referential properties of names and pronouns.", natural form of behaviour but is determined by a historical-cultural process"
They just double and triple down on the nefarious agenda, but this is also idiotic and only a passive and ignorant populace will allow this to stand even in the face of an ideologically captured and compromised judiciary. Either this doesn't hold water or it gets torn apart soon enough. Aside from the abomination with regard to changing Mother, I find this rather surprising change from paternity to patronage the most disturbing. This makes clear the move not only to strip away the entire notion of family and depersonalize familial connections, but it indicates an intent that privileges institutions and really appears to be a move back towards a monarchical model in which the "inseminated person" or "person" is merely an object of the state and subjugated to it as the highest authority. Really disgusting that this is being attempted, but again, if the mothers and fathers and citizens don't come together and rip this apart it is on them.
If getting rid of “gendered language” only, was the intent, then this one doesn’t fly at all. Both are male gendered words.
This one is definitely an attack on family ties and values.