As Orwell wrote, in The Principles of Newspeak, the purpose of the language so called was “to make all other modes of thought impossible”. As Orwell had earlier explained, in Politics and the English Language, the relationship of language and thought is a mutual feedback loop. Thoughts shape language, and language shapes thought. For that reason, the Party of 1984 constructed and imposed Newspeak, so that thoughts diverging from the principles of Ingsoc “should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words”.
We see the practical demonstration of Orwell’s theories all around us. It’s more than a bitter joke to quip that the overlords of “Progressivism” have taken 1984 as an instruction manual. It started, of course, as 1980s “Political Correctness”. But, if Political Correctness was suppression of bad words in order to quash bad thoughts, modern Progressivism has gone much further. As Theodore Dalrymple argues, the purpose of Soviet propaganda was not to be plausible, but to force citizens to repeat obvious lies. Because, “a society of emasculated liars is easy to control.”
Modern Progressivism has corrupted language beyond the wildest dreams of Political Correctness. Modern language, under the state-funded and enabled hand of Progressivism, has been so debased as to make the most absurd inversions of reality unquestionable dogma.
And so it is that “one of the largest providers of Nursing and Midwifery education in Scotland” is now instructing its students in the care and treatment of pregnant males.
Course materials obtained by the feminist website, Reduxx, and reported this week, contain some truly jaw dropping lines Napier university is telling its students:
‘It is important to note that while most times the birthing person will have female genitalia, you may be caring for a pregnant or birthing person who is transitioning from male to female and may still have external male genitalia.’
It’s important to note the revolting jargon of “birthing person”, which reduces the expectant mother, long one of the most revered icons of human culture, to a mere incubator. How long before children aren’t born, but, in the language of Brave New World, “decanted”, with the “birthing person” reduced to a mere human bottle?
But the reduction of women to walking incubators is just the start of the lunacy.
“A pregnant or birthing person who is transitioning from male to female and may still have external male genitalia.” Note, here, that they’re not talking about female-to-male transsexuals — biological women who “identify” as men — but male-to-female trannies. As if cutting off your cock and putting on a dress magically allows someone to become pregnant and give birth.
(Note, too, that the original article was penned by a male-to-female transsexual — so squelch those screeches of “transphobia”, right now.)
Whatever genitalia we might retain, this is simply impossible. People like me who have transitioned ‘from male-to-female’ cannot be a ‘birthing person.’ Despite the potentially confusing terminology, we remain biologically male whatever changes we might make to our bodies. Human beings are mammals, and the gestation of the young is a matter for females – actual females, biological females – and we [male-to-females] are not that.
Lest anyone be mistaken whether they are talking about biological men, the materials:
Go on to tell the student midwives that they need to be familiar with the catheterisation procedure ‘for both female and male anatomy.’ When removing catheters, the midwife need to warn male persons of ‘discomfort as the deflated balloon passes though the prostate gland.’
Reduxx reported that when Napier realised that significant errors had been made, hasty edits were made to the materials. ‘Male-to-female’ was reversed to ‘female-to-male’, though references to the prostate gland remained. Let’s be clear, female people who give birth do not have prostates.
Apparently, it also added an eye-watering suggestion that a female-to-male transgender person could give birth though a surgically constructed penis.
Spectator Australia
As one BFD wit has suggested, squeezing a baby through the penis will at least sort the birthing boys from the birthing men.
Just, whatever you do, don’t call them “mate”.
NSW government ministers have slammed a ‘woke’ inclusion training seminar after they were told they should not refer to each other as ‘mate’.
The NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet conducted a series of ‘diversity and inclusion’ consultations this week.
The program listed a number of workplace changes including bans on drinking alcohol in the office, yelling at colleagues and gossiping about staff.
The seminars are estimated to have cost taxpayers $202,000.
Naturally, a great many wowsers are zeroing in on the ban on drinking alcohol in the office — have they never had “Beer O’Clock” late on a Friday afternoon? — but that’s just a sideshow. As with so many “Progressive” nostrums, the motte hides a very sinister bailey.
Some ministers have criticised the ‘Respect at Work’ consultations and labelled them as ‘PC insanity’, ‘straight out of 1984’ and ‘mumbo jumbo’.
‘I use ‘mate’ all the time – it’s as Australian as you can get. How can it be offensive?’ one told The Daily Telegraph.
The seminars lasted three-and-a-half hours and were run by an external ‘diversity and inclusion’ consultant.
The sessions were aimed at fostering ‘inclusive leadership’, ‘unconscious bias and mindful inclusion’, ‘gender equity’ and ‘cultural inclusion’.
Daily Mail
Can we still call each other “cunt”, though?
I’m sure Marama Davidson would approve. We’re just reclaiming the word, after all.