I have urged other writers and communicators, who employ language, to take on my absurdist project of re-framing the basic nature of style terminology as a counter-revolutionary measure. I suggested we start a style manual to proof against the thwarting of basic English language meanings.
(Ahem.)
Over the course of the last 2-3 years, everyone has noticed how elastic and uncommitted the US press has become to the literal meaning of both dictionary terms and scientific definitions. They have substituted those meanings for the cupidity of modern political language.
The problem with this is very basic. The meaning of words are based on political context and not any universal fact-based meaning.
George Orwell noticed political manipulation of the English language, as an exercise of political convenience, came with a price when he wrote his famous essay, Politics and The English Language. A person would not really know what a word would mean from minute to minute. People became hesitant to stand on their own words because the determination of the meanings of a word did not come from a universal standard to compare and contrast with their own expressions of words. Word meanings became the product of a brutal editorial caste of propagandists. Propagandists, who didn’t care about the true meaning of a word, just the utility of language to control communication by a population.
Words are necessary to function in every day society. What if the meaning of water, or air, or food became an tool of political talking currency, determined by one party to castigate their rivals? Well, language would become a tower of Babel, swaying back and forth in the sky ready to fall on wary and unwary alike below. It would become a weapon of human depravity, of lies and of denialism to silence the skeptic and compliant alike.
This scenario does not characterize the conduct of a free and open society, where the free exchange of ideas and humors are necessary to improve the conduct of the way government is bestowed on the public. A public who both pays for the government and is expected to live and comply with the forms of its administration as a point of general order. Democratic elections, and multiplicities of parties, are beneficial for relief from a unipolar level of government. Such a uni-polity, where the many are not being served, but extorted as serfs by a factious gallery of competing narcissists.
SO… I have urged other writers and communicators, who employ language, to take on my absurdist project of re-framing the basic nature of style terminology as a counter-revolutionary measure. I suggested we start a style manual to proof against the thwarting of basic English language meanings. No one has yet taken me up on the measure, because there are always fights over editorial use of language including what a word DOES NOT MEAN and how to employ terminology.
It can start with one word from this post.
I will begin because I have license and entitlement to examine the meaning of the word WOMAN, because I am a woman.
WOMAN n.
An adult female human primate.
You are welcome to debate the meaning.
I would like to submit to audiences that leftist transgender politics do not reflect this meaning for the whole of our humankind. They actively exclude other transgender people for not being leftists, dismissing their humanity and dismissing the medical reality of millions of women who possess reproductive organs present by the nature of their born sex.
The denialism of this reality for the comfort of less than one half of one percent of the political diaspora, as the transgender left movement, can be debated as an argument of transphobia vs. that of a transgender supremacy faction that denies both basic medical reality and democratic choices as human rights.
Dr Bill Mitchell (a macro economics professor) agrees with you https://youtu.be/FHcueExMkOU