Pelosi Proposes New House Rules To Ban 'Gendered Words' Like 'Mother,' 'Father' and 'Son'

P. Gardner Goldsmith | January 4, 2021

The big-government politicians never stop hatching plans, even when many in America are celebrating what’s left of “holidays.” So it might not come as a surprise to discover that, as Breitbart’s Alana Mastrangelo reports, newly re-elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rules Committee Chair James McGovern (D-MA) over the holidays proposed new “rules” for the language used in operating the upcoming 117th U.S. Congress.

And it might not come as a surprise that their proposed new rules are dumb, insulting, counter-factual, and Orwellian.


Notes Mastrangelo:

Within the proposals are the creation of the ‘Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth,’ which would require Congress to ‘honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender neutral.’

And that does THAT mean?

In clause 8(c)(3) of rule XXIII, gendered terms, such as ‘father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister, grandson, or granddaughter” will be removed.’

Because, evidently, there’s no such thing as a “granddaughter” any more?

Read more: Dem. Congressman Concludes Congress' Opening Prayer With 'Amen...and A Woman'

Is that reality?

Given that people like Pelosi and most of those who have stepped foot in the House and Senate have not bothered to acknowledge the real wording of the U.S. Constitution, not to mention abide by it, perhaps this is just a natural extension of the “we can make words mean anything” mentality.

But this is a mentality that could become problematic when Nancy Pelosi tries one of her prideful “go-to retorts” when folks note that she’s a hypocrite for claiming to be Catholic while not only supporting abortion but taking other people’s money to pay for abortion providers (calling them “family planning” activities). Pelosi previously has shot back at critics who bring up her irreconcilable positions on abortion and Catholicism and life with her snide remark that she’s a “mother of five children”. It’s a statement that adds nothing to the discussion, and, it seems, is thrown down like some kind of emotional trump card to shut down criticism.

Now, Pelosi wants to eliminate that terminology on the House floor. Any bet that she still uses it at home?

Adds Mastrangelo:

In their place, terms such as “parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild” will be used, instead.

Yes. Make words mean different things. Eliminate other words. 

It’s not just reminiscent of Orwell’s NewSpeak from “1984,” in which the government slowly eliminated words from language so that they could control the sphere of thought and expression in the population, it is reminiscent of Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty, who, in “Alice Through The Looking Glass” engaged in this exchange with Alice:

’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Nancy and her ilk would like to be masters – not only over language, but over the slow descent of American culture into a COVID-masked, word-muzzled, thought-constrained, flock of sheeple.

The next step could be similar to that of Canada’s 2016 C-16 statute, which mandated that all state offices and any business the Canadian government “regulates” (which is all, directly or indirectly) must use the pronoun of visitors that those visitors demand.

Like Canada’s troubling government, the U.S. government long ago discarded the idea that private property is private. To them, it’s “public”, even when tax money isn’t used on it. 

And so are you. In their eyes, you have no real rights.

The House still has to vote on the rules, but they plan on being our masters.