Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Women’s College Bans the Word “Women”
I was at a restaurant recently and a waiter tripped over something and spilled a tray of drinks. I’m sure he was embarrassed, but I was uncomfortable as well. I was embarrassed for him. I’m not one who generally rejoices in watching someone make a fool of themselves. So I’m a little hesitant to admit how much I enjoyed this article on Fox News.
So the professors at a women’s college have been instructed not to use the word women (to avoid the appearance of thinking that there may be two genders). Perhaps next they won’t be allowed to use the word college (to avoid the appearance of thinking that there is some benefit to attending their institution). The left’s lack of any core principles (other than the ever-increasing acquisition of power) often leads to disconcerting conflicts. Disconcerting, and sometimes hilarious. The picture below is a good description of what’s happening on the left right now:
This is probably largely virtue signaling, but some of the “reasoning” behind banning the word “women” may be simply another example of the left thinking they can change reality by changing the language. Many of these people don’t live in reality, or at least they avoid it whenever possible. So their life is like the parable of the cave, in which they only see shadowy reflections of reality. Or someone else sees those reflections and then describes them to the students. Or something.
Or maybe I’m trying too hard to understand this. How do you seriously debate someone who does not take themselves, or anything else, seriously? I suppose I should at least consider the possibility that these people are just goofy.
Imagine Aristotle on a modern college campus. I would love to see his response to that memo…
Published in General
It would have been simpler and more clear if they had just said that they would accept anyone other than straight men. And I mean anyone – including genders that don’t technically exist.
Maybe the ugly fat poor ones aren’t into classical music?
After first contact, the bidding war for the first extra-terrestrial college student is going to be fierce!
I think you missed it – that’s already happening. I think.
Now they need to make me a sandwich.
@drbastiat : “some of the “reasoning” behind banning the word “women” may be simply another example of the left thinking they can change reality by changing the language.’
The left may not be able to change reality, but they try-successfully- to control our perception of reality and the narrative by changing language. Just look at how they brand abortion as “choice” and “women’s health issue” or illegal aliens as “undocumented”. Both sides do it, the left has been winning so far.
Great post!
Ricochet needs a rule against obscene photographs.
Trolls?
Perhaps trolls are a new gender.
Perhaps trolls are a new gender.
Another example: “dreamers.” They’ve even got people opposed to letting them stay in the country using the term.
Check the link, it’s straight from their web site.
Here’s another interesting bit of the policy:
So basically, if a man wants to go there, all he has to do is check the box on the admissions form that says he identifies as female. Once he shows up, he can just say he’s changed his mind since he applied and now chooses a “male gender identity.”
Nope, it’s not discrimination, it’s “affirmative action.”
What’s the difference? Glad you asked. Discrimination is bad discrimination against groups of good people, while affirmative action is good discrimination against groups of bad people, such as white cisgender heterosexual males.
Why should they be?
I have yet to meet a woman who makes a better sandwich than I do.
Women don’t grok the glory of a really great sandwich.
It’s win-win. The school gets to increase its pool of applicants without suffering the stigma of admitting that single-sex education is falling in popularity.
Shhh… Rudert might hear you!
My goodness that’s wonderful.
Had to look it up. When and why did we decide we needed a word like that?
I like the cis- prefix. It’s a great synonym for “real”, “actual”, and “non-delusional”.
“Would you like a Bud Light?”
“No, I prefer cis-beer.”
Don’t introduce sexual orientation, that just adds another dimension to their chart! Though I think under their policy gay men are excluded as well, if they were “biologically born male” and identify as men who like other men.
That raises another thorny problem: for years now, we’ve been assured that sexual orientation is fixed at birth, and that no one would ever “choose to be gay,” they are simply “born that way.” But what does that even mean, if gender identity is fluid?
Suppose, for example, that Alice was born gay. She was genetically, biologically hard-wired to find women attractive. However, suppose one day Alice chooses a “male gender identity,” wouldn’t that make
herhim a man who finds women attractive, i.e. straight? So it seems that Alice can change her sexual orientation, after all…Congrats for your daughter! Give me a team name so I can root for her in addition to the other usual suspects.
One of the male tennis players (Connors? McEnroe?) said the same thing about Serena Williams, that she would be number 800 on the men’s circuit. Of course, he caught a lot of grief, even thought Serena (or was it Venus) essentially said the same thing on a late-night talk show.
However, notice the feminists aren’t demanding the elimination of separate male and female sports. Have they ever said why that is?
Actually, the current dogma is that nobody’s straight. You only think you’re straight because you’ve been brainwashed. As such, you don’t choose your sexual orientation. Your sexual orientation is set at birth (and it’s the same as every other human). You merely choose to exorcise the brainwashing.
I need to go lie down…
Actually the academic left has long believed that sexual orientation, like gender identity, is fluid and chosen. True freedom demands the freedom of the individual to transcend biological “limitations” and be whatever he/she/ze wants to be.
The claim that anyone is “born that way” was always a case of taqiyya, a lie intended to advance the political agenda of gay rights and same-sex marriage.
Here’s what I find unbelievable: what parent would pay $60K a year to send a daughter to such a school? What young woman would want to enroll there?
BTW, we have friends (first generation Asian immigrants, and engineer and a doctor) whose oldest daughter matriculated there. She was a beautiful, intelligent young woman when she left AZ. After two years in the Berkshires, she is now transitioning to male and her parents are devastated. In two years she went from lovely young heterosexual woman to someone wishing to shed herself physically and hormonally of her former sex. I cannot imagine that this could have happened had she attended a coed university not marinating in this gender fluidity nonsense. It is wholly tragic.
Yeah, but why would he want to? Go there, that is.
Which is, of course, why they’re opening up admissions to a wider pool of applicants.
Have a drink first . . .