02-15-2019 01:00:05 PM -0800
02-15-2019 09:32:56 AM -0800
02-15-2019 07:34:51 AM -0800
02-14-2019 05:19:47 PM -0800
02-14-2019 04:32:01 PM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X


Live Blog

Here is your live blog for the day.

But has she apologized?

Do yourself a favor and click on over and read this.

Off the cuff:  In a PJM piece last week about how a rogue video editor at Seattle Fox affiliate Q-13  had doctored President Trump’s appearance during his national address on immigration and the shutdown, I was taken to task in the comment section on an issue unrelated to the report. Two commenters criticized (one harshly, one forgivingly) my use of the phrase “gender unspecified” when reporting that the television station in question did not reveal the sex of the person who had been fired for the doctoring. I used the phrase in what is apparently an old-school context, to denote male/female.

I looked into it, and found this Quillette essay: “Why We Should Stop Using the Word ‘Gender.’”

Here’s an informative pull-quote:

One interpretation is that the persistence of this sexually hazy usage of “gender” was rooted in the appeal of having a euphemistic term to distinguish the sexes, without getting too messily biological. This history seems to be also endorsed by Pinker, in The Language Instinct; he actually says here he refuses to use gender as a euphemism for the proper term of sex. The term gender, in this interpretation, would seem to be merely a delicate imposition in the interest of etiquette.

Beyond that, I quickly gathered that the word gender has been coopted by the left, and that the scientifically correct way to denote the two sexes is with the word “sex,” as in “sex unspecified.” Frankly, from a compositional  standpoint, that sounds a bit clunky to me, but whatever.

After reading the Quillette essay, my ears perked up when Mr. Trump used the word gender in exactly the same context (“regardless of gender”) that I had during his follow-up White House announcement of the deal he was offering Democrats to address border insecurity and end the government shutdown.

I don’t think the president was including transsexuals in the language of his proposals. My sense is that unambiguously using the word gender to denote the traditional duality of male/female must be generational, i.e. a previous generation is unaware that the word has fallen out of favor, especially on the right.

The genius of Martin Luther King, Jr. was that he made his powerful case for civil rights, not on grievance or identity politics, but by holding the rest of America up to our founding ideals.

The postmodern Left has of course rejected all that in favor of grievance and identity politics -- because they despise our founding ideals.

THREAD:

The problem isn't that the media gets the story wrong. The problem is, as Michael Walsh noted so strongly yesterday, that their actual job isn't to report stories but rather to advance a narrative.

And to that end, I'm not sure there isn't any obfuscation they won't indulge in. Aggravating an already bad situation is how papers like the NYT and TV outlets like CNN use and abuse their symbiotic relationship with the Social Media Outrage Brigade to advance those narratives even faster, and with even less regard for the individuals whose lives they destroy.

This will end badly.