Scientists Propose Phasing Out Terms "Male" And "Female"

 

Certain U.S. and Canadian scientists have officially proposed that the scientific community phase out the musty old terms "male" and "female" from scientific language in order to avoid any appearance of "emphasizing hetero-normative views." Instead, these “experts” want terms such as "sperm-producing" and "egg-producing" to be employed, as they say they are more inclusive. They also approved the use of  "XY individual" or “XX individual” as tolerable alternatives. 

 

Moreover, these ass-hats scientists contend that the terms "man," "woman," "father" and "mother" are "problematic," as are those such as "primitive," "advanced," and "non-native."

Something called the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Language Project put out the new scientific language guidance. The EEBLP is an initiative "founded by a collaboration of scientists in the US and Canada who claim some terminology is not inclusive, and could be harmful,” according to the U.K. Telegraph.

The Project was apparently conceived in February’s edition of the scientific journal "Trends in Ecology and Evolution.” (Check out this month’s centerfold! Want a subscription? Operators are standing by!) According to the Project’s so-called scientists, hateful terms like “male” and “female,” et. al., “are used to reinforce societally-imposed ideas of a sex binary." Isn’t society silly, thinking for Millenia that humans are comprised of males and females? Well, now we know better.

In seriousness, individuals and societies are diminished, not elevated, when people are referred to by their biological functions. You, ma’am, are not a “lady,” a “female,” or even a “woman.” You are no more than an “egg-producer.” And you, sir? Naught but a “sperm-producer.”

In any case, surely even these terms are too specific and exclusionary when men such as Rachel Levine can do nothing other than curl their hair and throw on a string of pearls and proclaim themselves to be women? It’s essentially the same thing as calling someone “male” or “female.” They, too, are exclusionary, bigoted, and hurtful! Literally violence!

Rachel, Lia Thompson, and countless others we now consider “women” still have male genitalia, but they would be apoplectic if someone referred to them as a “sperm-producer.” And we can’t objectively call them “egg-producers”…because they aren’t.

So, if we can’t just label folks “scrotum-sporters” and “boob-bearers,” what term(s) can we employ? I say, if we’re going to dispense with the traditional terms “male” and “female,” why not more accurately and inclusively brand every one of us a “feces-producer?”

Classy? Maybe not. Inclusive? Hell, yeah!

The Left is full of crap, and is trying—and thus far succeeding—to despoil tradition, wisdom, elegance, and beauty. It disdains the uplifting, despises the divine, denies the truth.

It is well past time that we stop the decay-- and put an end to this insanity. To paraphrase a 20^th Century Welshman: Do not go gentle into that dark and endless night. Rage, rage, against the dying of the light!

Thought experiment: would the song “Lady” by Styx be improved if the (mad) scientists’ recommendations were followed?

 

You’re my Egg-Producer of the morning

Love shines in your eyes

Sparkling, clear and lovely

You’re my egg-producer

 

              Or perhaps Billy Joel’s “She’s Always a Woman?”

 

She can kill with a smile, she can wound with her eyes
And she can ruin your faith with her casual lies
And she only reveals what she wants you to see
She hides like a child
But she's always an egg-producer to me

 

              Let’s not be blinded by “science.” Or “scientists.”