LUNACY: Woke Scientists Say to Replace ‘Male’ or ‘Female’ With ‘Sperm-Producing’ or ‘Egg-Producing’ Instead

It isn’t a week in America if some industry or over-credentialed institution puts out new language restrictions or recommendations.

The word police used to patrol the liberal arts beat and human resources departments. Now, no industry is safe to include the world of science and medicine. If you were to go back in time to the dawn of the feminist movement when women were burning their bras and proudly proclaiming ‘I Am Woman!’ and told them that in the future, using terms like ‘female’ would be considered controversial, I believe they would scream.

Yet, here we are, erasing not just women but men in an attempt to bend the knee to the woke gender ideology mob and appease the delicate sensibilities of a statistically miniscule percentage of our population. Unfortunately, this sort of placation has some possible real-world negative repercussions. 

RELATED: NY Middle School Apologizes for ‘Culturally Insensitive’ Chicken & Waffles Meal

Sex is Actually Binary

The latest push to erase the two-sex dynamic comes from the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB) Language Project, the brainchild of American and Canadian scientists. One of the main changes that have caught the eye of journalists this week is their recommendation to do away with classifying individuals as ‘male’ and ‘female.’

They argue that those terms should be phased out because they reinforce the idea that sex is binary. So to make sure you are keeping up with me, they want to stop classifying individuals by their sex because science is no longer science.

So how should scientists classify individuals? According to this crackpot team of experts, scientists should instead use terms such as ‘sperm-producing’ or ‘egg-producing.’ 

But my favorite alternate they suggested was to refer to individuals as ‘XY/XX individuals’, so… male and female? So how is it any different? Oh, that’s right, it’s not.

The argument behind these changes is that these new terms avoid “emphasizing hetero-normative views.” Ah, this is not an attempt to be more precise with our science but to appease sexual orientations other than heterosexuality. 

Naturally, this nonsense doesn’t just stop with the terms ‘male’ and ‘female.’

RELATED: Non-Binary God? The Church of England Considers Making Language in Scripture Gender-Neutral

Is There Anything You Can Say?

In addition to the male/female terms, the list of suggested phased-out words includes:

• man/woman
• mother/father
• primitive/advanced
• alien
• invasive
• exotic
• non-native
• race

The argument behind phasing out ‘invasive’ and ‘non-native species’ is that, according to these scientists, those terms are “xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and militaristic.” Now, I’m not the end all be all of military terminology and vocabulary. Still, I can tell you that ‘invasive’ and ‘non-native species’ are not militaristic terms, whatever that even means.

Instead of saying ‘invasive’ or ‘non-native,’ they suggest saying ‘newly arrived’ or ‘nuisance species,’ which might be my favorite suggestion yet. How is it nicer to call a group a ‘nuisance species’?!

But perhaps the craziest argument in this mess is the suggested phasing out of two fundamental scientific terms; double-blind and survival of the fittest. Apparently, using the term double-blind could be offensive to those with disabilities.

I think it’s more offensive to assume that blind individuals aren’t intelligent enough to understand the difference between their disability and the definition of double-blind. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is considered possibly harmful because it also discriminates against people with disabilities and is also linked to eugenics.

Look, my husband and I are members of the disabled community. We are both fitter than most regarding survival, especially in light of this sort of activity.

RELATED: It’s ‘Adios!’ to ‘Aloha!’ as the Left-wing Word Police Strike Again

The Death of Science

It’s pretty illuminating why our country is so far behind China regarding education and innovation. Instead of doing actual science, we are too busy fretting over how much we can virtue signal without regard to how it degrades real science.

Professor Frank Furedi of the University of Kent explains, “I think that when you characterize terms like male/female, mother/father as harmful, you are abandoning science for ideological advocacy.” The flip side of this argument is that while most people aren’t intentionally using their language to cause pain, these terms have the capability of causing “inadvertent harm” due to, as the project explains, “inherent complexities and historical legacies of language.”

Dr. Kaitlyn Gaynor, who helped start the EEB project, states that “The project started as a Twitter conversation among a few people discussing potentially harmful terminology.”

That should’ve been a red flag; nothing good ever comes from a Twitter conversation.

“Regardless of intent, the project of re-engineering language will cause confusion to many and the last thing that scientists need is a lack of clarity about the meaning of the words they use,” says Professor Furedi.

The professor has a point— what kind of catastrophic problems could result from scientists using imprecise language or focusing on ideology instead of scientific principles?

RELATED: “Satanic Gender Affirmation Ritual” Held at State Capitol to Protest Bill Banning Child Sex Changes

Loss of Focus

It’s a mad world where we focus on policing our words instead of moving forward with real innovation and discovery. Last month museums in the United Kingdom made waves when they said they would phase out the term ‘mummy’ and use ‘mummified person’ instead.

A spokesperson for the National Museums of Scotland said, “The word ‘mummy’ is not incorrect, but it is dehumanizing.” Dehumanizing to who? The dead mummy?!

Trust me; I’m reasonably sure the term doesn’t emotionally wound the mummy. Dr. Danielle Ignace of the University of British Columbia defended the EEB project, saying “The EEB Language Project will be a living document, as particular words that are harmful and their alternatives can change over time.”

How comforting we can just continue to spin our proverbial wheels around completely innocuous words instead of, you know, doing science.

“The hope is that this grassroots effort brings people together,” said Ignace.

That’s reasonable, because there were so many times in history when groups of people dictated what people could and couldn’t say, ultimately bringing people together in harmony.