Pelosi Bans ‘Gender’ Terms Mother, Daughter, Father, Son in House Rules

submitted by VioletRemi from (breitbart.com)

all 29 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]purrvana 23 insightful - 5 fun23 insightful - 4 fun24 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Yet she has the words "mother, grandmother" in her Twitter bio

I wonder how long before she (or her handler) removes them.

[–]VioletRemi[S] 18 insightful - 3 fun18 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Allowed for me, not for thee.

[–]SweetBabyCheeses 18 insightful - 8 fun18 insightful - 7 fun19 insightful - 8 fun -  (2 children)

This is bonkers...i presume they wanted to get rid of all sex based language rather than gendered language. Because if they get rid of gendered language then what words are trans going to use to describe themselves?!?! How can they be validated as the opposite sex if the only words we have left to describe ourselves are person. I despair 😂

[–]VioletRemi[S] 12 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, "woman" is not banned, but "mother" is.

[–]slushpilot 11 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Is "Woman Parent Day" still a holiday next year?

[–]LilianH 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This really is some 1984 level stuff. They've just reduced the number of words used to describe family relationships by at least a third.

[–]VioletRemi[S] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Archieved version to give no clicks: https://archive.is/JbRgQ

Source from goverment site:

https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117hresPIH-hres5.pdf

https://rules.house.gov/press-releases/pelosi-and-mcgovern-unveil-details-rules-package-117th-congress

https://i.imgur.com/ClFtd3S.png

[–]fuckupaddams 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I'm sorry but what exactly does this do to help the American people. What difference does the white house using gender neutral language really make??

[–]VioletRemi[S] 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It helps TRA and MRA, I suppose.

It is not laws so far. However, if they will use such words everywhere - they will come into laws too, at least if Congres will be democratic as well. That sounds pretty bad.

Some USA states have already shitty laws. Like if man raped woman, was put in prison 10 years for this, and from his rape he have a kid - because republican states are not allowing abortions in such cases, so she was forced to bear a kid from rape, then rapist can ask for a DNA test and go in court for "parental rights", and then mother will be forced for 1-3 days in a week to give a kid to a rapist.

And when abortion laws will be changed about "parents" not about "mothers", this means rapist from prison can now apply for woman to make abortion or to refuse abortion to her if he want it?

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

What difference does the white house using gender neutral language really make??

These rules are for the US House of Representatives (which along with the Senate is known as the US Congress), not the White House, HQ and residence of the US president. Congress is the legislative branch, presidency/the WH is the executive branch.

These rules definitely will make a difference coz it's Congress that writes/rewrites & passes US federal laws. Moreover, what happens at the federal level often trickles down & sets the tone for what happens in state and local legislatures.

Without being able to use the words mother or father, it will be much more difficult to discuss and properly draft laws pertaining to sex-specific issues like workplace provisions for pregnancy, maternity & discrimination based on pregnancy & maternity as well as the distinctions between maternity leave & parental leave; abortion; surrogacy; child custody & family law; insurance coverage for medical conditions related to pregnancy & childbirth as well as male and female infertility, and of course for birth control prescriptions (which usually pertain to women only for the purpose of preventing becoming mothers); and what information should be on birth certificates & other government-issued documents and collected/kept track of in/by government registries, data bases, health departments, planning agencies and the US Census.

I wonder if under the new House rules AOC would be considered out of order and subject to censure for making the following remarks on the House floor in July 2020 about the verbal sex-based harassment she received from Rep. Ted Yoho (emphasis added):

I do not need Representative Yoho to apologize to me. Clearly he does not want to. Clearly when given the opportunity he will not and I will not stay up late at night waiting for an apology from a man who has no remorse over calling women and using abusive language towards women, but what I do have issue with is using women, our wives and daughters, as shields and excuses for poor behavior. Mr. Yoho mentioned that he has a wife and two daughters. I am two years younger than Mr. Yoho’s youngest daughter. I am someone’s daughter too. My father, thankfully, is not alive to see how Mr. Yoho treated his daughter. My mother got to see Mr. Yoho’s disrespect on the floor of this House towards me on television and I am here because I have to show my parents that I am their daughter and that they did not raise me to accept abuse from men.

Now what I am here to say is that this harm that Mr. Yoho levied, it tried to levy against me, was not just an incident directed at me, but when you do that to any woman, what Mr. Yoho did was give permission to other men to do that to his daughters. In using that language in front of the press, he gave permission to use that language against his wife, his daughters, women in his community, and I am here to stand up to say that is not acceptable...

And so what I believe is that having a daughter does not make a man decent. Having a wife does not make a decent man...

Seems to me that if AOC had been made to change daughter, father, mother and wife to the sex obscurant terms child, parent and spouse instead, her remarks would have lost a lot of their power, pointedness and sting.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Now that I've read the source material in full and with care, I think that my characterization of the implications of these new rules might be in error, or at least over-stated, as apparently the language changes pertain to specific clauses in the House Code of Official Conduct, which can be seen here:

https://ethics.house.gov/publications/code-official-conduct#:~:text=Rule%20XXIII%20%2D%20Code%20Of%20Official%20Conduct&text=A%20Member%2C%20Delegate%2C%20Resident%20Commissioner,reflect%20creditably%20on%20the%20House.

On the other hand, there is worrying phrasing at the start of this bill, which suggests that these changes in the Code of Ethics are just the foot it the door to sweeping changes in other, broader contexts. The very first line of the bill says:

Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, and for other purposes.

Not to sound paranoid, but given everything that's been going on in recent years, I do suspect that this is the first step in the larger, longer-range agenda of making it impossible to identify, discuss and legislatively prohibit sexism and sex discrimination by making it verboten to acknowledge and specify sex.

[–]forwardback 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I second your concern. When the Dems said they supported the gender movement, I believed them. By rules and practices, legislation, or executive orders, we're going to see the changing of language and the loss of most (everything?) for which women fought so hard.

[–]MezozoicGay 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Republicans tried to please MRA and to remove all women rights, but always were failing and only partially limiting women. Now Democrats came and "look how Dad is doing this" and showing how to do it?

Looks like this parody is not a parody, but a statement of a fact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg

[–]Silverhatband 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So, Dems: "Hold my beer..."?

[–]MezozoicGay 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly.

[–]Silverhatband 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Political persons within federal agencies and departments can create administration changes that will carry profound repercussions legally. This is a fact Not to be taken lightly! Especially, as the new House rules establishes the Office of Diversity and Inclusion; better believe political interests will be stacked in agency positions. This may be even more detrimental than Supreme Court stacking. Civics. The more you know...

[–]SharpTomorrow 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is what happened when (actual) feminists are taken for granted and only vote as they are told to. female erasure. This is just the beginning.

[–]Silverhatband 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here comes dystopia.

Dems doing what they promised.

[–]Silverhatband 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The rules also got a big boost from progressive Queens/Bronx Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who said she was “grateful for@RepMcGovern’s leadership” during the process.

One Capitol Hill insider told The Post the idea for nixing gender from the new rules package likely originated in the House’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion. The same rules also enshrined the office as a permanent new addition to the Capitol.

The agency was created by Democrats in one of their first acts at the start of the previous Congress.

“This office is charged with submitting to Congress a diversity plan to direct and guide House employing offices to recruit, hire, train, develop, advance, promote, and retain a diverse workforce,” reads its official about page.

https://allworldreport.com/world-news/new-york-gop-congresswomen-blast-nancy-pelosis-new-house-gender-rules/

Hmm, will we be seeing women staffers "properly" replaced with TW? No precedent for that, is there?

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

See the reference in my post above to AOC's July 2020 much-publicized remarks on the House floor in which she repeatedly used used the words daughter, wife, father and mother. If AOC had used the terms child, spouse and parent instead, her takedown of Congress member Ted Yoho would have been far less dramatic, biting and effective. And her remarks would have come off as far less attention-grabbing, headline-generating and praiseworthy too.

[–]Silverhatband 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I did see. Thank you for presenting so well what I could not at the time. This very thing ran through my mind when I read AOC was in full support of these rules.

[–]Silverhatband 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Just read this comment on a website: "Henceforth, I shall refer to the Madam Speaker as It." (sadatoni)

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

https://www.ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/13719/house-rules-may-be-stripped-of-all-gender-references

https://www.ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/13804/no-more-mothers-and-fathers-proposed-rules-for-117th-congress-say-goodbye-to-bio

[–]eddyelric 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's kinda like the book Brave New World, with all its drugs, kids fucking each other , and the word "mother" being reduced to a slur...

[–]wendolynne 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ah word-smithing, the favorite pass-time of law-makers. They are not banning the words for family members. They are just cleaning up some cumbersome language - changing "mother or father" to "parent", "brother or sister" to "sibling", etc. in specific places in this particular document, where they have specified a long list of family members that this particular law applies to. It reads a little easier with half as many words and has the same meaning. Y'all are so melodramatic!

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah word-smithing, the favorite pass-time of law-makers. They are not banning the words for family members. They are just cleaning up some cumbersome language - changing "mother or father" to "parent", "brother or sister" to "sibling", etc. in specific places in this particular document, where they have specified a long list of family members that this particular law applies to. It reads a little easier with half as many words and has the same meaning. Y'all are so melodramatic!

When Obama in 2016 issued his executive order and "advisory letter" that by fiat changed the language in Title IX so that inclusion in female scholastic sports in the US must now be based on "gender identity" rather than "sex," was he and his administration really "just cleaning up some cumbersome language" in the original law? Or did they entirely change the meaning of that law and who it was intended to protect as well?

The "word smithing" of the Obama admin made it possible for males to use "gender identity" claims to compete in female scholastic sports in the US. As a result, starting just months later, two boys - Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller - began competing in CT HS girls track. https://youtu.be/EwlKwuC6LkE https://youtu.be/sHqiG_hrbsc https://youtu.be/ypwJXNCE4_Y https://youtu.be/sHqiG_hrbsc

Now those two CT boys - neither of whom would've qualified for the boys' teams at their schools, and one of whom, Andraya Yearwood, is actually a terrible runner - hold 15 statewide HS girls track records between them. For three years, these two boys won virtually every girls race and meet they entered, as well as many other prizes. They've been awarded the CT state sportswriters' "Courage Award," the Athlete Ally national award for their "stunning and brave" activism (which seems to consist of wearing wigs, hair extensions, fake nails & dresses & acting in their own selfish interests), been likened to MLK and Rosa Parks, been lionized in many press profiles as well as a FL documentary film, feted at the Tribeca and Telluride film festivals. Yearwood was invited to speak about "diversity & inclusion" at Harvard, and also spoke about "trans inclusion" in female sports at a Pride event in Los Angeles.

Similarly, a male, CeCe Telfer, who decided to go trans his senior year in college, became the 2019 NCAA Div II women's champion in the 400 m women's hurdles, an event that Telfer did poorly in during his three years competing in college athletics as a male. https://youtu.be/QLfUjrUO_7w

Also in 2019, June Eastwood, another male who went trans for his senior year in college after disappointing results competing as a male, was named "Big Sky Conference Female Athlete of the Week" and in 2020 trounced all the female field in the mile at another Big Sky event: https://youtu.be/acEwFJBerIU

But according to you, "we'all" are just being melodramatic when we regard with suspicion the "word smithing" being done by the Democratic Party because we aren't so breezily confident as you that changing the language in laws so as to eliminate reference to sex won't alter the meaning. And coz some of us have witnessed firsthand the backlash against women's rights and feminism that began in the 1980s and thus aren't able to share your naive conviction that there isn't a far bigger and more nefarious agenda here.

This video might help you understand where "we'all" melodramatic defenders of women's rights are coming from: https://youtu.be/UCfLwf1LG8s

But thanks at least for not calling us hysterical.

[–]forwardback 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

In the coal mine, the canary is laying on the bottom of its cage. You remind me of the mine owners, insisting conditions are still safe for birds and miners. Nothing to see here, back to work.

[–]LeaveAmsgAfterBeep 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I’m expressing skepticism this is real