Back when homosexuality was illegal and considered a mental illness, advocates of legalization argued that it was merely a “lifestyle choice” and a “preference”, rather than something that they could not control. After it was accepted as legal, and even a right, it became an “orientation” that was inherent and that people couldn’t control their sexual attraction. Even then, however, “sexual preference” and “sexual orientation” was generally used to be interchangeable and basically denoted one’s sexual attraction.
Even as recently as this year, Logo TV (a LGBTQ&c. focused channel), The Advocate (a LGBTQ&c. magazine), and Slate all used the term “sexual preference” or similar language declaring the impermanence of this “orientation”.
Yet all it took was an expression of lack of prejudice or hatred against LGBTQ&c. by Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett to literally rewrite the dictionary to make it doubleplusungood and her statement an expression of throughtcrime.
Today Mazie Hirono said the term "sexual preference" is offensive. @SteveKrak showed as of September 28 Merriam-Webster didn't say it was offensive, but today it does say that.
So I checked when the entry was last changed according to merriam webster and *THEY CHANGED IT TODAY* pic.twitter.com/sb9gK69M0R
— Wokal DistΔnce (@wokal_distance) October 14, 2020
Check it out! Merriam Webster covering for Dems on the fly! pic.twitter.com/5Gm5LHAhqE
— Thor Svensonn (@thorsvensonn) October 14, 2020
This isn’t the first time Mirriam-Webbster has caved to the wokeness and made itself the vanguard of newspeak.
This retroactive condemnation is, of course, selective, with Democrats—including Joe Biden—being given a pass because it is politically convenient to do so.
The veracity of the accusation does not matter to these people, only the fundamental transformation of the country does.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 10.23.20 (Evening Edition) : The Other McCain
Pingback: Saturday Roundup of Link Roundups | 357 Magnum Archive 2.0