Characterizing the opposition as insane is a favorite tactic of the Left. To question their latest fatwa is for them an indicator of mental derangement on the part of the inquirer.   

But in case you haven’t noticed, within in the halls of academia, which once passed as the place for rational inquiry and analysis, the real crazies are hard at work introducing the equivalent of jabberwocky. Even language is supposed to adjust to the current insanity of those seeking “gender equality.”

No doubt inspired by Lewis Carroll’s nonsense poem, the administrators of the University of Tennessee’s Office for Diversity and Inclusion, a bunch of the slithy toves gyring and gimbling in the wabe if ever there were slithy toves, appear determined to eradicate prejudicial pronouns from the English language. Gender neutral pronouns are to replace traditional terminology. No one is to be referred to as “he” or “she” lest the transgender community be offended. A helpful chart indicates the new, gender free terminology designed to replace the offensive pronouns and all their variants.

Reader, you may laugh, but as for the designers of the new language -- well, xe aren’t even smiling. Xe are perfectly serious.

According to ABC’s site wate.com, the aforementioned Office for Diversity and Inclusion -- what else would it be named? -- says it has sound reasoning behind the attempt to make the English language gender neutral, saying it “alleviates a heavy burden for people expressing different genders or identities.”

The office’s Donna Braquet declares:

“We should not assume someone’s gender by their appearance, nor by what is listed on a roster or in student information systems. Transgender people and people who do not identify within the gender binary may use a different name than their legal name and pronouns of their gender identity, rather than the pronouns of the sex they were assigned at birth.”

Braquet adds, “…if students and faculty cannot use ze, hir, hirs, xe, xem or xyr, they can also politely ask. “’Oh, nice to meet you, [insert name]. What pronouns should I use?’ is a perfectly fine question to ask.”

Of course, it would be impolite to ask Braquet if ze is out of hir mind.

But hir latest declamations might give parents who are thinking of sending their children to the University of Tennessee a bit of a pause? Are they prepared for their kids to come home and announce that the terms “mother” and “father” are inherently offensive and that henceforth parents are “Ne” and “Ve?” 

It is tempting to laugh at the crazies. 

However, the thought pattern behind this newest assault on the English language is distinctly unfunny.

The truth is that the drive to eliminate the distinction between male and female has finally reached the stage at which even language itself is to become anarchical -- destroyed in the name of absolute “equality.” For the crazies, ensuring incomprehensibility ensures confusion. Confusion then ensures the masses are stupefied. Stupefied masses then become completely malleable and subject to whatever definition the powers that be, usually the almighty State, grant them.  Apparently, by “de-sexing” language a mere unit, not a human being who is either male or female, is “born.” The complete smashing of individuation of any sort is the result. 

We have seen the Left’s attempt to shift the definition of what it means to be human time and again. The twentieth and now the twenty-first centuries have been rife with imitations and variants of the attempts of the French Revolution to redefine the human being according to the whims of the State, which was to ensure absolute equality. As Robespierre put it, to be a citizen meant that “all privileges, all distinctions, all exceptions must disappear.”

Under communism, equality meant that, so as to create the perfect communist drone, all classes must disappear, all differences among classes must be eradicated.  Everyone, without distinction, was to be a “comrade,” equal in all respects. Mao Tse Tung was to imitate the Leninist and Stalinist view of the classless society, enforcing uniformity and regimentation to the point of extinguishing individuality altogether.

But nothing equals the insane attempt by the leftist crazies to completely eliminate the distinction between men and woman. Absolutely nothing.

If they succeed in their attempt to eradicate the concept of male and female by radicalizing language, the result will be not just a loss of communication. It will be the collapse of society as we know it. 

In the long run, perhaps that is what the crazies want. The reality of the world as it really is, divided equally between those who are uniquely men and uniquely women, seems to be too much for them. The existing pattern of society as it has been from time immemorial is not one they wish to adjust to. They cannot live in a world defined by the reality of the distinction between the sexes, so they make the insane attempt to destroy reality. 

Disastrously, the attempt to re-create reality invites coercion of the masses who live in and with reality and who know the created order of the universe, including the society in which they live, will not really change according to the wishes of crazies, be they Robespierre, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, or Braquet. Men will remain men; and women will remain women despite attempts to use linguistics as both a tool of denial and a useful weapon for enforcing conformity.   

If the insanity continues unchecked and unabated, coercion by the crazies is next. And isn’t coercion always the end game of rabid ideologues? Huge chunks of reality are ignored, and when there are questions about the mental stability of the ideologues, the questions are not only unanswered, but they are not even permitted. Not only is there no permission to protest or question -- it follows that force must be applied in order the unreality of the ideologues be maintained.

Alarming? It should be.

After all, it is probably well for all Tennesseans to remember that it wasn’t too long ago the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts made a decision to replace the terms “mother” and “father” with “parent 1” and “parent 2.” The office ultimately reversed its decision after “receiving feedback,” and “reverted to the previous form.”

Parents and others concerned about the annihilation of the distinctions between the sexes should realize what’s at stake and refuse to allow the crazies to define how they, their children and the rest of us talk, write, speak, and act.

A piece of advice on where and how to begin the fight against insanity: Don’t send your children to the crazies’ schools -- including the University of Tennessee.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her a prize for excellence in systematic theology.  She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and to a wide range of other online magazines, including National Review, RealClearReligion, and Barbwire.  She has been interviewed about her articles on talk radio. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com