Here’s one for you: The Trans Doe Task force is seeking to encourage scientists to find new ways of discerning a human fossil’s gender apart from biology.
What? That couldn’t possibly be right could it? Well apparently it is.
The Trans Doe Task Force is a niche advocacy nonprofit that is dedicated to, according to its website, find and research cases of homosexual “missing and murdered persons, especially focusing on unidentified individuals who may have been transgender.”
Besides doing their regular tasks, the Task Force is now also spearheading an effort to stop anthropologists from identifying human remains based on biological gender. The reasoning of these folks is that since, according to their beliefs, the concepts of sex, gender, and identity are culturally and spatially relative (that is, gender consists of a whole spectrum of possibilities rather than being only male and female), the use of only male and female designations does a disservice to people who do not clearly fit the gender binary (don’t identify as either male or female). This is not only an attempt to promote the homosexual agenda, but to actually change the language in order to normalize transgenderism.
But it is not just activist groups that are promoting this attempt to change the language. Recently, the Associated Press updated their style book to include a recommendation that journalists no longer use the term “transgender woman” to describe a male who identifies as a woman. Rather, they say the person should merely be referred to as a “woman.” In fact, it goes even further by advocating that journalists completely avoid using the word “female” altogether. They believe that this kind of gendered word usage “can be seen as emphasizing biology and reproductive capacity over gender identity.” My goodness, we wouldn’t want that, would we?
And now, dictionary.com and thesaurus.com are getting into the act. They have written an entire rationale for changing English grammar as it relates to pronoun usage in order to normalize transgender people in the language.
In certain circumstances, English grammar does allow for the use of plural pronouns (ex., they, them) to be used to refer to a single individual. (For example: Each firefighter should carry their own helmet). This usage is merely a language convention and does not actually relate to a person’s gender.
But that is not what these folks are advocating. They want you to change the grammar in a way that makes the use of plural pronouns refer specifically to an individual’s gender. For example, in referring to a particular single individual, they now want the plural pronoun to be a gender identifier. For example, speaking of an individual female (or male) person, they want it to be permissible to say, “I went to the store with them.” This kind of language allows for the person being referred to get around being labeled either male or female. They could be anywhere on the “gender spectrum.”
The purpose of all of these language contortions is not merely to make transgenders feel more comfortable. What they are attempting to do is to actually change society’s perception of reality. They want to expand and/or constrict the English language in ways that make it difficult (or impossible) to speak of transgenderism in ways that don’t conform to their beliefs concerning homosexuality.
Just to be clear, this is not a new tactic. In his 1943 book, The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis noted that British society was already dealing with attempts to change the meaning of words to promote various politically correct ideas. And in modern times, when you hear pro-abortionists use the term “pro-choice” to advocate for killing babies in the womb, they are also using this tactic. They are trying to use words that make people’s feelings and perceptions of reality more important than objective facts.
It is a fact that words have meaning. And you can, indeed, change the vocabulary to make it seem that something is real that is, in fact, fantasy. But it does not actually change reality. Reality exists in a particular way no matter how people try to camouflage it.
Christian Theism acknowledges reality the way it actually exists. Naturalism, on the other hand, does not necessarily do that. Naturalism is the belief that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists.
Because of their fundamental belief about the nature of reality, when it comes to dealing with the natural world, Naturalists have typically come down on the side that objective reality exists in the material universe, and can be fully explored using science. But since they don’t acknowledge any transcendent existence, they don’t recognize an objective source for morality (which would require a transcendent law giver). So they believe in objective reality concerning the natural world, but not as it relates to morality.
In recent times, though, their ideology seems to be overtaking their reverence for science. Now, to many of them, a woman can be a man and a man can be a woman.
The tactic of changing and controlling the language is a means of mind control. In the past it was used by the Nazis and the Soviets, and is now used by modern totalitarian regimes like Communist China and North Korea. The fact that it is being attempted in the U.S., by both government entities and the media (including the corporate news media and social media), is evidence that there is an attempt to impose totalitarian influences here, as well.
But this now begs the question: What does all of this have to do with worldview?
Well, worldview is defined as: The assumptions people make about the nature of reality. An “assumption” is a set of beliefs that seem so obvious that people don’t even question them. They are merely assumed to be true. And “reality” corresponds to “the way things actually exist.” It can also be labeled as “Truth.”
So what we have regarding the use of language is a particular worldview system that is trying to promote their beliefs by controlling the use of language in ways that advance their own views and discredit others – regardless of how it corresponds to Truth.
Of course, this kind of manipulation is only necessary when the viewpoint one is attempting to promote is not actually true. One that is true is not afraid of other people’s point of view. They would simply say, “Okay, share your view and the evidence that what you are saying is true.” They then simply let the chips fall where they may. Since actual truth is the bottom line, there is no fear of other points of view.
So who is it that is trying to manipulate the language? It is people who hold a naturalistic worldview.
∙ They are the ones who are trying, using Critical Race Theory (CRT) to convince people that some races are good and other races are bad.
∙ They are the ones who are using the euphemism “pro-choice” to advocate for the murder of babies in the womb.
∙ They are the ones saying that a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man.
∙ They are the ones trying to redefine the word “marriage” to include homosexuals, when the very concept of marriage refers only to a relationship comprised of one man and one woman.
∙ They are the ones renaming “illegal aliens” and calling them “undocumented immigrants” in order to take away the stigma of their illegal activity.
∙ They are the ones who keep changing how they refer to Marxist philosophy to keep the general public from knowing what they are really promoting (liberalism, progressivism, Christian socialism, Social democrats, …).
∙ They are the ones who call themselves Christians while promoting non and anti-Christian beliefs and policies.
All of the subterfuge is designed to trick people. Those who use this tactic are trying to make others think they mean one thing when they actually mean something else – with the ultimate goal to attain political power. And with this power, it is their intention to crush those who do not agree with them.
And this is why biblical worldview beliefs must dominate society. Contrary to the understanding of many, the domination of a biblical worldview does not force everyone to become a Christian or go to church. Rather, it creates an environment of freedom that allows EVERYONE to be able to express their views. It is the ultimate source of freedom for an entire society.
A biblical worldview believes in freedom of conscience so people can believe what they want. It even allows people to be wrong if that is their desire. It is the very source of freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, the rule of law, individual rights, the value of the individual, equal justice under the law, and the high value of human life. None of these things naturally exist in an environment dominated by a naturalistic worldview.
Words do matter. It matters that the truth not be suppressed. And it is the worldview beliefs which dominate a society that create the environment that the people in that society must live under.
There is only one counter to those who promote false beliefs – speaking the truth as plainly and as boldly as humanly possible. The truth clearly and articulately spoken will expose lies. That said, the ones who have bought into the lies will kick back. But those brave enough to stand up to the blowback will make a difference in the lives of those who hear Truth spoken.
© 2022 Freddy Davis