On Tuesday, Judge Amy Coney Barrett told Senator Dianne Feinstein that she “never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.” Senator Mazie Hirono, in addition to asking Judge Barrett if she’s sexually assaulted anyone before, harped on Barrett’s use of the phrase, claiming it to be outdated and offensive.
The liberal media quickly pounced on Barrett’s use of the allegedly offensive term. As of this writing, there are now over 20,000 news stories about it.
While we expect Democrats and the liberal media to accuse Barrett of bigotry for using this longstanding innocent term (while also ignoring Democrats’ repeated use of it in the recent past) what is actually quite disappointing is to see the way Merriam-Webster, which has been publishing dictionaries since the 1800s, sprung to action to give credence to these attacks by literally redefining the term, seemingly overnight.
If you visit their website and search for the definition of “preference,” at the very bottom of the definition it reads “5. offensive, see usage paragraph below : ORIENTATION sense 2b // sexual preference,” and claims “The term preference as used to refer to sexual orientation is widely considered offensive in its implied suggestion that a person can choose who they are sexually or romantically attracted to.”
But the above explanation was only just recently added to the definition. It is likely this change occurred sometime after the faux uproar over Barrett’s use of the term, but we can’t know for sure when the change was made. However, we do know that on September 28, 2020, just over two weeks ago, “sexual preference” was not considered offensive according to Merriam-Webster. We know this thanks to an archived version of the page. You can compare the two versions of the definition below:
.@MerriamWebster has changed the definition of "sexual preference" from an innocuous alternative to "sexual orientation" to an "offensive" term. #Orwellian pic.twitter.com/2VkhRWjLff
— Matt Margolis 🇺🇸 (@mattmargolis) October 14, 2020
This is obviously the reason why most of us hadn’t received the memo that “sexual preference” was an offensive term. Because it clearly wasn’t accepted to be an offensive term, even by the Left, until Amy Coney Barrett used it. Never mind that pretty much everyone has used it for decades, and, as PJ Media reported yesterday, Joe Biden himself used it during a virtual campaign event recently. Many others also used the term, which you could find should you take the time to google it. Or, you can watch the video below featuring a number of people on the Left using the term without sparking outrage.
I recommend watching this video through to the end.
“Sexual preference.”pic.twitter.com/SEq87e0Muz
— Matt Margolis 🇺🇸 (@mattmargolis) October 14, 2020
That’s right, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently used the term “sexual preference.”
Imagine that. I’m sure more examples will be discovered soon, too.
This effort from Merriam-Webster would be amusing if not for the Orwellian implications of it. If one of the leading publishers of dictionaries is willing to redefine a term on a whim in order to give credence to attacking a Supreme Court nominee and paint her a bigot, how else will our language be manipulated for partisan purposes?
_____
Matt Margolis is the author of the new book Airborne: How The Liberal Media Weaponized The Coronavirus Against Donald Trump, and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis
Join the conversation as a VIP Member